Ministerial Code

Lord Campbell of Alloway: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to amend the Ministerial Code.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is normal practice for the Ministerial Code to be updated and reissued after a general election. A revised Ministerial Code was published in July 2005. This took account of comments and recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Public Administration Select Committee.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but may I ask why this code of procedural and ethical guidance, neither honoured nor upheld, should not now be amended to afford some form of procedural safeguard for the impartiality of the Civil Service; for first account to Parliament of anticipatory information; and to enable an independent body to advise on non-financial conduct as proposed by standards of conduct in public life? Can resignation from public office, unless offered and accepted, ever properly be treated as a private matter?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Ministerial Code is a very useful document—I am sure that the noble Lord will have read it—and it is extensive in the matters that it covers. Ultimately it is for the Prime Minister to decide who his Ministers should be, and of course the Prime Minister makes those decisions. Independent advice is now available to the Prime Minister on ministerial interests—matters that are sometimes raised with the Prime Minister and other leading Ministers—and Sir John Bourn will carry out those duties. That announcement was made earlier this year.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that there is considerable demand for the independent investigation of complaints? The Cabinet Secretary, who investigates some of these matters, has been a valuable person to deal with them, but he has some connection with government. As a result, there is a need for some independence here. Perhaps my noble friend will consider that.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think, as the noble Lord has acknowledged, that a measure of independent advice is already available. The situation is simply that the Prime Minister is ultimately responsible for the conduct of his Ministers, and it is for him to decide who should be part of the Government. No doubt, the Prime Minister will reflect on current affairs.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I suspect that in the case that, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, had in mind, advice before the event would not have been particularly welcome.
	In 2003, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that there should be both an adviser to Ministers and a small panel of senior people, one of whom could be chosen to investigate matters. Neither of those recommendations has been accepted. Do the Government have any intention now of doing something about it?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have accepted that there is a need for an independent adviser on Ministers' interests, as I explained. We do not always accept all recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, as is the case in the second matter to which the noble Lord referred. We decided that that is not a course that we want to adopt.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, why do we not transfer the policing of the code to the Commissioner for Standards and Privileges, as Members of Parliament have been calling for at the other end for the past 10 years? Why do we not just do that and avoid all the public controversy that now exists?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says, but I feel that the controversy or controversies, when they arise, would simply move to some other issue.

Lord Soley: My Lords, can my noble friend remember any Prime Minister who, at the end of the day, after taking into account independent advice and everything else, has given up the power to select who should be and should not be in the Government? If that had been the case, can he think of anyone who would have been left in the previous Conservative Government if such advice had been given and taken?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot. My noble friend makes an effective point: it is for the Prime Minister to decide. The Prime Minister operates and acts in the court of public opinion; he must make a judgment. That is for the Prime Minister alone. To do otherwise would be to abdicate his role as the leader of our country and the leader of a Government.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, we all accept the fact that the Prime Minister has the right to appoint whomsoever he will. However, does the Minister agree that the bedrock of our Cabinet activity is the doctrine of collective responsibility and that that is clearly and publicly no longer the fact?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says, but I simply do not agree with him.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, what is the point of having a Ministerial Code and a Committee on Standards in Public Life, if the Government's position is that the Prime Minister can choose which parts of which recommendations he will implement?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, obviously, the Prime Minister has the right to listen to advice—we all do as Ministers. That is quite right, although we do not accept every piece of advice that is given. No doubt, when the noble Lord was a member of the Conservative Government, he did not always accept the advice that was given to him. I am sure that that is how he approached matters, as a person of independent mind and view.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, are not people who continue to demand independent committees for this and independent committees for that excessively optimistic? Can my noble friend tell me of any public inquiry on any public body that does not produce the results preconceived by those who have called for it that has not been labelled a whitewash?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my noble friend, with his experience of Parliament, speaks with great wisdom on the issue.

International Development: Cricket World Cup

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What support they are providing through their international development programmes to those Caribbean islands which will host the 2007 cricket world cup.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, United Kingdom development assistance to the Caribbean region, including debt relief and multilateral assistance, amounts to about £17,250,000 per annum. Caribbean Governments have asked for specific help for the cricket world cup in a number of areas related to security. All those requests are being favourably considered.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her positive Answer. I welcome it. Will she confirm that, to date, India, for example, has already committed itself to supporting a stadium for the Government of Guyana and that China is providing a stadium for Dominica? Given the terrible poverty of the Caribbean islands and the fact that tourism is a way to tackle poverty, would not a greater effort on the part of the British Government to help the islands prepare for the world cup be beneficial for the islands in tackling the poverty from which they suffer?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can confirm that India has provided a grant to help fund Guyana's stadium and that China has provided assistance in Antigua, Grenada and Jamaica. At the recent UK-Caribbean Forum in Barbados, assistance with the world cup in a number of areas was requested of the British Government by the Caribbean side. We are looking at those requests. They relate mainly to security, but help with visas was requested in countries where we have posts and they do not. We have provided long-standing support to the region in tourism development.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, the Minister was forthcoming in suggesting that help would be given for security and one or two other issues. Only nine months remain until the world cup. Given the enormous success across the political divide of our landing the Olympics, in particular the emphasis that was put on their multiracial dimension and on young people, is this not an opportunity to go a little further than just security and a few other matters and create an exciting vision for the cricket world cup, bearing in mind not least what is happening at Lord's at the moment?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, a vision for the cricket world cup is something that Caribbean Governments will want to look at, given that it is being held in nine countries in the region. We will of course want to support any longer-term developments. I know that the legacy of the world cup will be one of the things that the countries are looking at. I have to say that my hopes of an England-West Indies final are rapidly fading, given the state of the West Indies team.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this is one world cup for which Scotland has actually qualified? Will she recall from the UK-Caribbean Forum that the Minister's plea to the United Kingdom was for help with security, particularly following the tragic shooting of the Minister in Guyana? Will she confirm that we will consider deploying the Caribbean guard ship for the occasion of the world cup and that the Home Office will be mobilised to give them as much advice and help as possible on security?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can confirm not only that Scotland has qualified but that, once it is knocked out, it will then support the West Indies on the basis of "anybody but England". On security, we are already engaged in discussions throughout government with respect not only to the deployment of a guard ship but to other areas that were raised with us at the UK-Caribbean Forum. We are awaiting some additional information from the Caribbean side on some of those issues.

Lord Addington: My Lords, can the Minister indicate further what China seems to be getting out of this, other than simply an intervention in a sport in which it has shown no interest so far? Should Britain be trying to engage in some other activity to up its prestige in this area?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, as noble Lords may know, China is seeking to exert greater influence in certain parts of the world, including the Caribbean region and many countries in Africa. Our commitment to development assistance in the Caribbean region goes back a long way. We provide it not only through our bilateral programmes in Guyana and Jamaica but through our support to regional organisations, including the Caribbean Community organisation. It is through that mechanism and the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States that we seek to ensure that our support for the region is sustainable.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agree that sports of a varying nature, especially those that involve young and vulnerable groups, can be a useful social development tool that helps to break down social barriers and channel aggression? Therefore, what support do Her Majesty's Government provide for sport-based programmes in developing countries, especially those that need to reintegrate children who have been child soldiers?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right about the importance of sport in social development. As for specific programmes that we are funding anywhere in the world related purely to sport, if memory serves me right, none is purely sports-based. I will check and write to the noble Baroness on that.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, although a majority of Members of the House support a poverty-focused aid programme, part of the aid programme is also about winning hearts and minds? The present experience in some Caribbean countries such as Antigua and St Lucia, which was not mentioned but where they are refurbishing the sports stadium, is that, in that battle for hearts and minds, the Chinese certainly appear to be the people's choice.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I hope that that is not how UK assistance to the Caribbean is viewed by young people or by the wider population. It is fine to give support for building a stadium, but those countries will then have to sustain the stadia over a number of years. We seek to ensure that, by working with the region in areas such as HIV/AIDS and capacity building in trade, we are helping to ensure its longer-term sustainability.

Courts: Job Cuts

Lord Goodhart: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the proposed cuts of 1,000 jobs from the Courts Service and 300 from the Department for Constitutional Affairs can be achieved without damage to the administration of justice.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we are committed to protecting vital services to court users and providing value for money for the taxpayer. The anticipated reduction is for up to 1,000 posts in Her Majesty's Courts Service and just over 300 in the rest of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, making a total of approximately 1,300 posts. The reductions result from a planned programme of efficiencies and business change, aimed at improving value for money while preserving services to court users.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, following the severe cuts in recent years in civil legal aid and the swingeing increases in recent months in court fees, does that not simply confirm that the Government have no wish to protect access to justice? Are not the events of the past few weeks clear evidence that underfunded administration of the law, whether criminal or civil, leads to disaster?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords; I disagree with that. The problem—a problem that we have recognised—is the vast increase in criminal legal aid. Bringing that under control is the way to improve the funding of civil legal aid and to have more funding available for the courts. While that is being done through the good offices of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, we need to ensure that there is proper efficiency and financial control in Her Majesty's Courts Service, which has done splendidly in delivering the finest possible quality of court administration.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, did my noble and learned friend note that the back end of this Question expresses concern about the,
	"damage to the administration of justice"?
	With that in mind, would my noble and learned friend like to comment on the apparent disillusionment among the public at the way that justice is being administered by judges?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not think that the problem is the administration of justice by judges. The issue is to ensure that legal aid is targeted at the people who need it most, in particular those with problems of social exclusion or family problems. We need to make sure that legal aid goes there, and we need to ensure that the fabric of the Courts Service is properly preserved. That is what we are doing.

Lord Henley: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor confirm rumours that many of us have been hearing—that he has insisted on the cuts to the Courts Service and to his own department because of the extra costs being imposed by the creation of the Supreme Court?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I can happily confirm that there is absolutely no truth in that. We have to be efficient in expending our money on the courts because of the demands, as I indicated, of criminal legal aid. We need to ensure that that is brought under control.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, given that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that there will be no impact on the quality of the administration of justice, what have these 1,300 administrators been doing hitherto? Further, have lay justices been fully consulted on the cuts?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we have consulted widely with judges and magistrates. Many of the financial gains will come through more efficient administration. For example, there are many more court areas than are needed. I said that our commitment was to ensure as much as possible that the quality of services at the front line—namely, the number of times the court opens, how many judges and how many magistrates—is preserved.

Lord Elton: My Lords—

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the reductions will not lead to any loss in time for the consideration of cases related to the adoption process? Can he also confirm that funding has come to a standstill for the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service for the past two years?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, on the question of the time that it takes to deal with adoption cases and public law children cases—those where a local authority argues that a child should be taken away from its parents or put into care—the delays are getting longer. The reason for that has nothing to do with cuts in court services but with the increase in the number of cases the courts have to deal with in these areas. So I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Earl the assurance that he seeks because the pressures in those areas are getting worse. That is why it is so important to get a grip on where legal aid is going to ensure that proper funding is available for such cases. Perhaps I may answer in writing the second part of the question put to me by the noble Earl.

Lord Elton: My Lords, first, arising from the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, surely the trouble is not so much with the interpretation made by the judges of the law but with the laws that the judges are required to interpret and their volume? Secondly—forget the "secondly"; let us have that.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have never known judges to have any problems with the quantity of the law. I do not think that that has ever caused the judges a problem.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, has not the introduction of conditional fee arrangements resulted in a diminution of the legal aid budget, and if so, by how much?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it has led to a diminution in the amount of money spent on personal injuries cases. Overall, since 1997, the legal aid budget has gone up by in excess of 100 per cent. If there had not been that diminution in the cost of personal injuries cases, it is hard to imagine where access to justice would have been more inhibited by what happened. I shall write to my noble friend with the precise figure.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend tell us what negotiations are taking place with representatives of those about to lose their job?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the moment it became apparent that there might be reductions in jobs, most of which we hope will be achieved by natural wastage, the relevant unions were notified. Discussions are going ahead with them now.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor reassure the House that the number of probation officers or those with the same amount of training and expertise will be kept at the same level as at present in order to deal with the increased load that they will have to undertake?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we run most things in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, but not the probation service. I am afraid that that is too wide of the mark of this Question.

Energy: Renewable

Lord Tombs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their current estimate of the total cumulative cost to electricity consumers of Her Majesty's Government's renewable energy strategy, assuming that the target for 2010 and the aspiration for 2020 are both met.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, for 1990–2010, the maximum annual cost—I emphasise "maximum"—of the Government's renewable energy strategy, assuming that targets are met, is very approximately estimated at £500 million. For 1990–2015 the equivalent estimate is £800 million per annum, and for 1990–2020 it is £1 billion per annum. These figures compare with a current total annual cost of supplying electricity to all consumers in the UK of more than £15 billion.

Lord Tombs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. The Question has been phrased in identical terms to one I asked two years ago and the Answer has been similarly phrased—with identical figures, which I find surprising and slightly disappointing. Can he confirm, first, that the figures, in particular for the period to 2020, take account of the rapidly escalating costs for offshore wind? Secondly, do the figures include the costs of transmission from the offshore wind conglomerates to the national grid?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, very simply, I hinted at the answer to that question in my Answer. These are maximum figures. Obviously, given the way in which the renewable obligation system works, one can make a calculation of the cost only by taking the pay-out rate and multiplying that by the amount of renewable energy that suppliers have to produce. The figure is reduced by the amount for which people produce renewable obligation certificates, where they are making a decision that they can do it cheaper. The figures remain the same because the system remains the same. The figures that we have given on the additional costs take account of transmission costs and of variability.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most effective forms of renewable energy is passive solar heating linked to domestic hot water cylinders? Why is more not done to promote that form of cost-effective solar heating?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we are having an energy review at the moment. We will be looking at all the different forms of electricity and at the costs and seeing whether we need to make any adjustments to the framework of incentives.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, given that the Question refers to targets and aspirations, could the Minister tell the House what progress has been made towards reconciling the apparent differences between the DTI and Defra on targets and how they should best be resolved? Can he give an unqualified guarantee that the two departments concerned are now of one mind and in the future will speak on the subject with just one voice?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness is referring to the fact that, in the document on UK energy and CO2 emissions projections, 8 per cent was given as the likely figure for renewable energy in 2010. That compares with the DTI target of 10 per cent in 2010. The figure given by Defra was in the context of a cautious forecast of CO2 emissions, in relation to allocations under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. It is a cautious projection. It is still perfectly possible that we will reach the 10 per cent target that the DTI has.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the United States has saved a total of 1 per cent of electricity consumed from the national grid by changing the daylight saving protocol? What would be the saving here if we followed the lead of the United States? Also, if changing the daylight saving protocol is not part of Her Majesty's Government's energy agenda, is there not a golden opportunity on tomorrow's Order Paper to incorporate lighter evenings as part of their renewable energy strategy? Would he agree that not supporting the Lighter Evenings (Experiment) Bill, which has been drafted to conserve energy, to reduce carbon and road deaths and to improve the quality of life for everyone, will send out a clear message that Her Majesty's Government might be losing enthusiasm for those worthy objectives?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: No, my Lords. As I have explained to the noble Lord on, I think, three occasions in three separate debates, it is by no means clear that daylight saving time would lead to lower energy costs. First, there is the problem of people putting on more lights early in the day and then leaving them on. The one bit of experimental evidence is from Portugal, which changed and found no diminution in the energy. This is nothing to do with our enthusiasm for reaching our targets.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, can the Minister help me to understand his Answer? Is he saying that £1 billion will be added to the cost to the consumers? Is that not in effect a highly regressive stealth tax, being introduced under the guise of an environmentally friendly policy?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, no. As I am sure that the noble Lord's party will soon realise, if you have objectives of increasing the amount of renewable energy and reducing CO2 emissions, there is inevitably a cost. That is the cost that we think it right to bear to try to deal with our CO2 emission targets.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I recognise the consistency of the Question and of the Minister's Answer, but would not a rather more important question be: what will be the cost to all of us of failing to adopt low-carbon technology? Given the likely rise in the real price of energy, how do we better advance energy efficiency on the one hand and protect the fuel-poor on the other? I declare an interest as chair of the National Consumer Council, an adviser to EAGA, and sponsor of the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill, which I hope the Government will support.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. The question is how we achieve our CO2 emission targets and what actions we need to take, in relation to not only one energy source but a diversity of energy sources and energy efficiency.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, among the total costs he mentioned, can the Minister indicate what proportion refers to renewable energy other than wind power and whether that proportion is likely to rise over the years ahead?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give an exact figure. The calculations are based largely on wind. There is a small amount of hydro, but that will not expand greatly.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, do the calculations include the considerable extra cost of the enlarged spare and stand-by capacity needed on the system, which is inevitable as renewables become an increasing proportion of the total, given that they are by their nature intermittent?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we normally cite the NGT figures, which concluded that if we got to 20 per cent of electricity using wind it would add 5 per cent to the cost of domestic electricity. That will include the costs of the turbines, transmission and the costs associated with balancing variability—offset, of course, by the fact that you use very little fuel.

Electoral Administration Bill

Report received.
	Clause 2 [Use of CORE information]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 2, line 40, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
	"( ) A CORE scheme may make such modifications of the regulations mentioned in subsection (2) in their application to a CORE keeper or the information kept by him as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Amendment No. 1 responds to concerns raised in Grand Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who is not able to be in his place today, that the regulations governing the publication and supply of information kept on CORE to bodies such as political parties might differ greatly from those which apply to electoral registration officers when they publish and supply such information locally. As I made clear in Grand Committee, CORE will not change the information that is held on electoral registers or the persons and organisations to whom it may be published or supplied; it simply creates a central point of access. I therefore agreed in principle with the point made in Committee that the regulations that apply to EROs publishing or supplying information should also apply to the CORE keeper.
	However, I also made it clear that some flexibility was needed to ensure that, for example, the CORE keeper was not required to keep a copy of the full register available for public inspection. The amendment retains that flexibility but also seeks to ensure that we more clearly set in law the principle that the regulations governing CORE will be the same as those which apply to EROs.
	Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 also respond to issues raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. The noble Lord was concerned that, as drafted, some of the security measures included in the CORE provisions might call legitimate acts into question rather than focusing on fraudulent activity. Specifically, he was concerned that large households with a number of postal voters, such as student halls, would be flagged up as potentially fraudulent. He argued that CORE should instead focus on, for example, instances where large numbers of postal votes have been redirected to an alternative address, as it is in such circumstances that fraud is more likely to be involved.
	The noble Lord was also concerned that the Bill's existing provisions would flag up legitimate instances of a person voting as another elector's proxy. He argued that CORE should instead focus on fraudulent acts of double voting. My amendments tighten up the Bill to respond to these concerns. I hope that they will gain support on all sides of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 4:
	Page 3, line 18, after "same" insert "redirection"
	Page 3, line 20, after "once" insert "(other than as proxy)"
	Page 3, line 45, at end insert—
	"(13) A redirection address is an address in respect of which the person is not registered."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 5:
	After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
	"SAFEGUARDING CORE INFORMATION
	Correspondence, electronic or otherwise, is prohibited between the National Identity Register and any CORE scheme."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will remember the recent passage of the Identity Cards Bill. The purpose of this amendment is clear. It will ensure that the identity cards register, so eloquently opposed in this House and in another place by my noble and right honourable friends, would not be able to correspond or communicate with the online record of electors.
	I am sure that some noble Lords will have followed the ID cards debate and the following questions carefully. They may therefore be surprised that I have tabled this amendment at all. On 13 February, the Government stated in a Written Answer in another place:
	"There is currently no proposal for these specifications to provide for two-way data-sharing with the proposed identity cards register".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/2/06; col. 1595W.]
	However, on 18 April, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, announced on behalf of his right honourable friend Des Browne that data from the national identity register will also be used,
	"as an adult population register . . . this should be implemented through the identity cards scheme on the basis that the scheme eventually becomes compulsory".—[Official Report, 18/4/06; col. WS 134.]
	It is my understanding that it is not currently compulsory to hold an ID card and that that provision will only apply after 2009—let us not forget that from 1 January 2009 it will be compulsory to be on the register.
	We wonder what other plans the Government have for the ID cards scheme. We learnt from the Sunday Times on 23 April that Ministers in the Home Office were considering the use of ID cards to keep health records on such things as blood groups, allergies and donor status. I understand that the Minister, Andy Burnham, does not consider that HIV and AIDS victims need to state their status at this stage. It seems that pledges from the Government on the information to be included on or excluded from the register come with a time limit.
	I remain anxious about the safety and the sensitivity of information that will be kept on CORE. It will contain a record of where one is registered to vote, and it is my understanding that there could also be a record of the marked register of postal votes. I hope that, now that we are to have CORE, once it has been established it will be a success. It would be devastating if it were to fail and adversely affect the democratic process. The potential vulnerabilities of CORE are clear. We had a full and interesting debate on the fraud implications of having an online record of electors. Noble Lords will recall the statistic from the Financial Services Authority, which tells us that fraud is rising by over 300 per cent a year.
	Despite a long debate in Committee, we have not yet heard from the Minister exactly how the CORE electoral scheme is to be run and what safeguards against fraud will be in place in whatever structure is adopted from the two models that the noble Baroness suggested at that time. Will there be one centrally run scheme for the whole country that takes information from local authorities, or will there be a comparative network between authorities?
	The consultation period on this ended on 7 March, I believe, and I am sure that the Minister will be able to provide answers to these questions. That is vital information, as each system comes with its own specific vulnerability. A central scheme, once hacked into, would yield up nationwide information. A locally integrated scheme might be easier to infiltrate on a local level, but it would be more difficult to access national information in that way. Will CORE be an electronic version of what exists physically at present or will it do the thinking for the electoral registration officers in matching up data?
	This amendment is tabled in a protective spirit—not only to protect electoral information on the register, but to prevent links being made between data that could pave the way for compulsory voting or compulsory ownership of an ID card in order to vote. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, to the Identity Cards Bill stood in the way of compulsory ownership of a physical ID card. But it is not difficult to imagine, in a few years, an elector being informed that he is not allowed to vote because he does not possess an ID card. More important, the vulnerability of the combined information on the CORE and the ID registers will pose a serious risk in terms of identity theft and fraud. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance that such connection will be prevented in the interests of data security or that proposals for data sharing will be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny.
	It is also my understanding that the Home Office is the only department to produce costings for the identity cards scheme. Can the Minister inform the House, following the consultation, whether CORE and the NIR will link up and, if so, can she give an indication of the costs? In the event of data sharing between CORE and the ID register, which we are all trying to prevent, can the Minister state that the correspondence of information will not be used to penalise individuals in respect of voting if they have failed to keep up to date on the ID register? Would an individual be given notice that the information held on him on either register would be linked up?
	My noble friend Lord Northesk raised this point eloquently in the Committee stage of the Identity Cards Bill. He said that,
	"one possible reason for the provision"—
	that is, to register facts on an individual without his knowledge or consent—
	"might be to facilitate the merging of data on to the register from already existing government databases".
	My noble friend went on to say that such a linkage would be,
	"wholly antipathetic to individual privacy rights".—[Official Report, 16/11/05; col. 1691.]
	What is more, the link between CORE and the NIR would operate immediately after designation of passports.
	The information to be held on all these systems is highly sensitive. We have learnt that the NIR, the system for passports, can include not only biometric data but also health records. We need an assurance that there will not be a link-up between these systems and, in particular, that CORE will not be able to be interrogated on behalf of the other systems. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not see how there cannot be at least a one-way link. If you are trying to establish someone's identity and whether they have the right to vote, you will want to interrogate the national identity register once it is complete and compulsory. It will be a jolly good way of knowing whether someone is who they say they are and whether their claim to be allowed to vote should be taken at face value. Given that under the national identity regulations there will be enormous fines for giving false information about where you live and your main address, the national identity register will, it seems, become the main source of information for who should be on the register. It will be used by local authorities and others to pinpoint who should be on the register in their campaigns for inclusion.
	On postal voting fraud, I should have thought that, when it is complete, the national identity register will be an essential source of information for drawing the attention of electoral registration officers to likely fraud, because it will be such a complete, accurate and up-to-date database—ha ha. We shall see—it is supposed to be. So the flow of information from the national identity register into CORE seems essential, although I agree with my noble friend that what exactly happens should be under parliamentary control. I share her concerns about the flow of information in the other direction. We should not share electoral information with other systems through government, except under extremely tight control.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for raising this important issue. I will begin by responding to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. In his speech, there was a lot of "could", "should" and "might be". One of the critical issues that the noble Baroness rightly described in the amendment is that we should move away from "could", "should" and "might be" to being as clear as possible. I will deal with her questions as best I can and then talk about the specific details of the amendment.
	The noble Baroness is right that we have the responses to the consultation. I do not yet have a definitive statement from my honourable friend Bridget Prentice, who is the Minister responsible, on whether we should be looking for a gradual implementation or going for what one might describe as a "big bang" effect, but it is worth remembering that many registers are held electronically. Noble Lords accepted in Committee that what I was describing was not at all something that removed the power from the local level—that is the critical place where the register is held—but something that enabled the merging of these address books, if I may describe them like that, so that it would be found more valuable for the political parties, in particular, to access.
	There is no plan at this stage to go beyond that. The noble Baroness rightly raised both in Committee and in your Lordships' House today the issue of making sure that if we were to move further than that—for example, people checking that their entry was correct online—we would have to tackle fraud absolutely. Indeed, she gave the figures for the concerns of the Financial Services Authority on fraud, which we take seriously. I completely accept that point. In Committee, we talked about the possibilities of CORE. I accept that we cannot move in any direction that would enable people to use it fraudulently. However, it is meant to be a tool that is useful to, for example, the political parties and the Electoral Commission. That is how we should think about it.
	When it comes to how to consider the national identity register, I understand very well from having followed the debates in your Lordships' House and another place not just people's sensitivities about this database, but—if I might say from my experience of other legislation in which I have been involved—the general concern that data are protected properly. I am the Minister with responsibility for data protection, so I, too, take that matter seriously. The noble Baroness is right to say that one should not be able to use the register differently without parliamentary scrutiny. For example, if one wanted—I stress "if"—in the future to use the identity register to look at security checks to help to spot fraudulent or duplicate entries, one could do so only after we had followed the affirmative order procedure outlined in the Identity Cards Act as it currently stands.
	I have checked through all the possibilities that I could think of in relation to how we might link up the registers. None of them could be done without the affirmative regulation procedure. I would like to take a step further, if I might, but I crave the indulgence of your Lordships' House, for I cannot do that without going back to my colleagues in the Home Office. My personal preference would be to accept the amendment, because I can see that the noble Baroness is seeking to make sure that, if we were to move in this direction, we would do so by using legislation appropriately. Noble Lords will know that there is further legislation that would need to come in.
	I cannot do that today because I would need to go back and confirm that point with colleagues. If the noble Baroness were willing to withdraw her amendment on the basis that we would have a discussion between now and Third Reading, my commitment would be that of course she should be allowed to bring it back if she felt it appropriate and if I had not resolved the issue. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her response and for her offer of further thought on the subject. I am bound to say that we are a long way through the process on this Bill and this issue has been around since Committee. While I always accept that the noble Baroness will do what she says she will do, I am going to try to make sure that we get this provision into the Bill. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 123.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 3 [CORE scheme grants]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 4, line 2, leave out "may pay grant" and insert "must make sufficient financial provision available"

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we debated these precise amendments in Committee and our position remains unchanged. Our concern with the funding of the CORE scheme was that local authorities were to be put under undue pressure to meet the cost of the scheme and, as a result, could be faced with making cuts in other services to finance it.
	As a background to the financial decisions to be made, the Minister informed us that models 4 and 5 in the appendices of the consultation paper were chosen as the basis of the CORE scheme. Does that mean that both models will be used, or will DCA choose between them? This has serious implications for security, as I mentioned in our earlier debate. After the Minister referred those models to us in Committee, I looked in detail at the useful diagrams of models 4 and 5 and I remain concerned about some areas.
	In model 4, the central integrity reporting repository, which I take to mean the central bank of data, would send electronic messages to local authorities if information was duplicated. I would not argue with the principle of lessening duplication on the electoral register, but I was concerned to read the following statement:
	"If a registering elector's details share sufficient similarity to an elector already registered in another locality, the Central Repository would trigger a warning if the elector is supposedly registering for the first time, or trigger a message to the old [local authority] that the voter is now registered in a different [local authority]".
	I am concerned about the potential for error in that statement. Two individuals could have very similar details, yet one could be struck off the electoral register automatically due to an overall similarity. The problem with leaving the integrity of the electoral register to a machine is that decisions are made rapidly and automatically and require a duplication of effort if the local authority personnel also have to manage the data. Moreover, the concluding sentence of the description of model 4 states that the database would not have complete integrity, as not all discrepancies will necessarily have been resolved. What is the point of having a central system at all?
	The central registry system in model 5 would ensure that discrepancies are resolved before they are officially recorded there, but that central system would be vulnerable to fraud. Where would the funding come from for the extra local authority staff needed to support the system?
	My objections to the scheme are based purely on the spirit of the protection of data. As my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth has stated, we are supportive of creating a CORE scheme in terms of what can be achieved, but I remain unconvinced that any of the schemes proposed will be robust against fraud. In that sense, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, which would ensure that appropriate parliamentary scrutiny is applied to each stage of the CORE scheme.
	I have described the background and will move on to the substance of my amendments. They will ensure that sufficient financial provision is made available to local authorities to implement the scheme. Perhaps those words are too broad but they were intended in the most frugal sense. The scheme should be sufficiently funded so that it does not fail, but not in excess of absolute necessity. That provision would be made following the assessment of costs. While the amendments would not write a blank cheque for the CORE scheme, they would ensure that there is not another situation like the recent council tax revaluation computer scheme which has accumulated substantial costs but is still not yet up and running.
	I confess that I am still a bit confused by the Minister's comment in Committee that £10 million was the cap for setting up the scheme, because that was the amount available. But she went on to say that she would not rule out looking at the matter again. If, when the scheme was being set up, something emerged that might clearly be of additional benefit, it might cost more. I stated in Committee that Essex County Council, of which I am leader, had to find several hundred thousand pounds more to run last year's elections. That is just one local authority, and I am concerned about local authority services overall.
	A few more figures were presented, but again I struggle to see exactly where they are going. I am sure the noble Baroness will be able to provide more clarity. Let me suggest my understanding of the funding proposals. Of the £20 million needed to set up the scheme, £17 million represents additional costs to local authorities. I understand that they will be provided to implement the scheme. Even though we do not know what the secondary legislation measures might be, the remaining £3.8 million or so will be given to local authorities if necessary. Overall, in England, the scheme looks set to cost, at the very least, £30 million. That is not to mention the £1.2 million which has already been transferred to the National Assembly for Wales, and the £2.9 million transferred to Scotland, where almost £5 million is therefore in pre-emptive funding.
	Amendments Nos. 6 to 10 would ensure that there was proper financial consultation under the Bill to ensure that the base cost does not accumulate over time. Amendment No. 11 would ensure that the orders made under subsection (1) were made only under the terms of subsection (1) and would restrict the broad legal application to the power to make a different provision for different purposes. I hope that these amendments are clear to the Minister, even if they are complicated in their presentation. I think she knows what I mean by them, however. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I appreciate entirely that he speaks with great authority from his position as leader of a local authority. Indeed, I understand the issue very well. There is a genuine concern for the noble Lord and those involved in local government to ensure that this scheme is funded properly, and that they do not find themselves with a need to find consequential funding. That could, as the noble Lord rightly indicated, have an impact on services available to local people. In a nutshell, that is what I see lies behind the noble Lord's specific amendments.
	As I indicated, although the consultation has closed, we have not yet decided on the model. The noble Lord made very important points about the critical nature of electronic data being held centrally; about making sure that the models themselves were proofed against fraud; and making sure that the systems work effectively. I will ensure that those are fed into the discussions on the consultation. It is important that we keep noble Lords who have been involved in this legislation absolutely up to date with the thinking as we develop CORE, for the expertise is clearly in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord will know that in Committee we talked about some of the funding questions. I will just run through them so that they are on the record, on Report, in your Lordships' House. However, it is against the principle which the noble Lord rightly identified of wanting to ensure that we fund CORE properly so that it is dealt with as a separate item and is not a drain on resources from local government.
	I will run through those issues because in Committee we talked more generally about the Bill costs. We estimate the cost of implementing the measures in England and Wales to be about £20 million. As the noble Lord indicated, most of this, £17 million, represents additional costs to local authorities. An additional £3.8 million will be made available to local authorities for the cost of the secondary legislation measures. Some £19.9 million has been transferred into revenue support grant to cover the new burdens imposed on local authorities by the measures and by the secondary legislation package. An additional £1.2 million has been transferred to the National Assembly for Wales for the implementation of the measures there.
	The noble Lord knows well the Government's policy on ring-fencing. We will not be ring-fencing this. We recognise that it is important that returning officers and registration officers receive adequate funding to enable them to implement the measures. Clause 63 provides for the Electoral Commission to collate centrally information from local authorities on their spending on elections and registrations. It is the first time that information will be collected in such a way and it is an important part of ensuring that we develop policy appropriately in future. Incidentally, the Scottish Executive have £2.9 million in Barnett consequential, for the implementation of those measures which extend to Scotland. The point about CORE, as I indicated, is that it brings together information in order to make it easy for the organisations which are allowed to access the 400 or so separate electoral registers. As I indicated, that is supported by all the political parties.
	As the noble Lord has indicated, each electoral registration officer will need to provide CORE with data output in a consistent format. Since 2004, we have supported implementation with funding of about £1 million to third-party software vendors and individual electoral registration officers to ensure that their systems can output data in the agreed standardised output format—which is electoral mark-up language, I am told.
	We have also sought specialist advice from the Office of Government Commerce on ensuring that we have the appropriate governance, assurance and procurement arrangements. As noble Lords will know from Committee, £10 million of capital modernisation funding has been approved for CORE, although the procurement approach will include a market sounding phase to test the preferred approach to procuring and implementing CORE and to refine the cost estimates. We are committed to continuing to support CORE when it is fully implemented, including funding new burdens. I have made that as clear as I can for the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield.
	I want to make a further point, which I hope will also provide reassurance for the noble Lord. We do not expect any aspect of CORE to be burdensome to electoral registration officers. They will continue to collate their registers and publish them monthly. The difference will be that, as well as publishing the register locally, they will provide an update to the CORE system. That should be as simple as a few mouse clicks or an automated system. Therefore, we do not anticipate there being an administrative burden, which, as the noble Lord will be the first to say, we need to consider in cost terms apart from anything else.
	As I have indicated, we have set money aside in the Bill for local government and for CORE, and we do not see the scheme being administratively burdensome in any way. I have also indicated that, should there be additional costs because of changes that might be made, we will fund them. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, will have a smile in his heart in recognising that this is not in any way meant to be burdensome, financially or administratively, to local government, and that is our commitment. We anticipate this being a useful tool that political parties and the Electoral Commission will find of great value.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer. I was reassured by the fact that she said she would take back some of the information that I gave about data protection and by what she said about the way that that would be handled. Clearly we need to consider that and it needs to be part of the consultation process.
	On local government funding, we just have to wait to see what happens. The Government have provided the money but often, whatever the intentions, things turn out to be more expensive. I will remember the words that the noble Baroness used. I think that she referred to possible "additional costs". She is nodding her head. I am not sure whether the nod of a head goes into Hansard but at least I have mentioned it, so that should suffice. Therefore, if the scheme did turn out to be much more expensive than everyone claims, local authorities should be recompensed. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 not moved.]
	Clause 6 [CORE schemes: procedure]:
	[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]

Lord Norton of Louth: moved Amendment No. 12:
	After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
	"CORE SCHEMES: EVALUATION
	(1) The first CORE scheme (the initial scheme) to be established under section 1 shall be subject to evaluation by a body designated by the Secretary of State.
	(2) The body designated under subsection (1) shall make a report to the Secretary of State.
	(3) No order for a second CORE scheme shall be laid before Parliament unless accompanied by a copy of the report made under subsection (2).
	(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Electoral Commission may be designated as the body to undertake an evaluation."

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, the purpose of this new clause is to provide that, after the introduction of the first CORE scheme, no further scheme shall be introduced until the first has been evaluated and that evaluation has been laid before Parliament.
	I cite in support of the new clause the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. At Second Reading, he said, in respect of the introduction of personal identifiers:
	"On an issue of this importance, evidence is required."—[Official Report, 13/2/06; col. 1019.]
	I see no reason why the same principle should not apply in respect of CORE schemes. Indeed, the case is even stronger because we already have some evidence on the usage of personal identifiers, whereas we have no evidence at all on the use of CORE schemes.
	Clearly, the use of such schemes is important. As we have just heard, rolling them out will incur cost and it is important that it is done as efficiently and effectively as possible, with security not being compromised at the expense of convenience. Given that, I think that the need for an evaluation of the first CORE scheme is compelling. As the Bill stands, consultation will take place with the Electoral Commission and other bodies before a scheme is introduced or varied, but there is no requirement for a dedicated study of whether the scheme has actually worked in the way that is intended.
	When I pursued this issue in Committee, the Minister said that Parliament would have to approve an order before a second scheme was introduced, and that Members would expect the Government to come forward with a review. I am sure that we would. But a review can encompass anything from a short in-house commentary to a thorough external review by experts. Parliament will have to approve each CORE scheme, and it is important that the decision we take is an informed one. We therefore need to make clear that there should be an evaluation by a designated body.
	The new clause thus places in the Bill a requirement for an evaluation of the first CORE scheme by a body designated by the Secretary of State. The body will make a report to the Secretary of State and no order for a second scheme will be laid before Parliament unless accompanied by that report. The clause also provides that the Electoral Commission may be designated as the body to undertake the evaluation. I appreciate that the commission may also be designated as the CORE keeper. In Committee I sought to exclude it from being a CORE keeper so that it could be the body that undertakes the evaluation. However, I am advised that it would be possible for the commission to assume both roles without creating a conflict of interest, since it could commission an evaluation.
	It is worth stressing that the new clause requires an evaluation of the initial CORE scheme and not of subsequent CORE schemes. Reviews of subsequent schemes may be helpful but they are not required by the clause. It therefore imposes no excessive or continuing burden and it impacts at the point where an evaluation is likely to be most useful. If there are problems with the initial scheme, they can be picked up and corrected before a second is introduced. If we are to move beyond an initial scheme, then Parliament is entitled to a detailed report on how that scheme has worked. On an issue of this importance, evidence is required. I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Norton. This fits in with the earlier part that I talked about in my amendment, and I hope the Government will support the comments that my noble friend has just made.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for his well targeted amendment. As he indicated, we discussed a similar amendment in Committee. I said then that I agreed with the spirit of the proposal, but I felt that the requirement for a formal evaluation was perhaps disproportionate, given that the CORE scheme orders will already be subject to affirmative resolution. Yet, since I said that I agree with the spirit of the proposal, and since the noble Lord has brought this forward again—I have had the benefit of discussing it with him as well, for which I am grateful—perhaps I may suggest a compromise.
	As the noble Lord knows and has indicated, under Section 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Secretary of State has the power to direct the Electoral Commission to produce a report on any subject. If the noble Lord were willing to withdraw his amendment, I could give a commitment that if an incremental approach is taken to implementation we will ask the commission to publish an evaluation of the initial scheme before we bring any subsequent order before Parliament. I think that that meets the noble Lord's objective. I hope he will accept that my commitment is made on behalf of the Government—we will do it—and so will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, making an amendment to the Bill is a means to an end; a ministerial statement also is a means to an end. The end in this particular case is ensuring that the initial CORE scheme is subject to a thorough review. I am grateful to the Minister for her assurances and constructive response and for putting it on the record. I am content that it serves to meet the goal that we share. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 9 [Registration officers: duty to take necessary steps]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Page 6, line 31, at end insert—
	"( ) removing individuals from the electoral register who are no longer eligible to remain on the register"

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, this is a small part of an electoral registration officer's duties, but it is important to try to make it clear in the Bill that electoral registration officers have a duty to ensure that individuals who are wrongly on the register are taken off. It was painfully obvious at the recent local government elections that there were people on the register who should not have been. When inquiries were made into where they were, people said that they had not lived there for years. It is important from a number of points of view. There is endless possibility for fraud if information about elections and electoral numbers is being delivered to people who are no longer there and somebody knows they are no longer there. Although people may have died, for example, some time before, they are still on the list and their families are approached. It is also important that one has a proper idea of how many electors are entitled to vote.
	For all those reasons, we believe that it would make sense for the electoral registration officers to have a duty to ensure that the register is as up-to-date and accurate as it can possibly be, by which we mean taking off those who should not be on the register. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this is a small but sensible amendment. In my experience when canvassing with names of people, one frequently finds that when one knocks on the door the people turn out to have left two or three years before, because the tendency of returning officers is, if no form is returned from a particular house, to leave people on the list on the assumption that they may have failed to return it rather than that they have moved.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there is nothing between the noble Lords on both Front Benches and myself in what we seek to do. I would merely argue that what we have done in the Bill achieves what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, seeks. Let me attempt to convince her of that.
	Clause 9 is designed to encourage electoral registration officers to maximise the number of eligible electors who register. Noble Lords will know that in the September 2005 report Understanding Electoral Registration, the Electoral Commission estimated that in 2000 there were 3.5 million people in England and Wales, which is 8 to 9 per cent of the eligible population, who were not registered to vote. The new duty clause is there to make it clear that EROs should do all that they can to tackle what we have all identified, and I think we all recognise, as the real problem—under-registration.
	Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 already requires registers to be accurate. I sought the advice of parliamentary counsel because, as noble Lords have rightly indicated, this is a clear and obvious step. Parliamentary counsel was very clear that, as a matter of law, the provision does all that is necessary to ensure the accuracy of the registers. Subsection (2)(a) requires the registers to contain,
	"the names of the persons . . . entitled to be registered".
	That means that if a person is entitled to be registered, his name must be on the register. If a person is not entitled to be registered, his name must not be on the register. Parliamentary counsel's advice and legal support says that the law is completely clear on this point.
	Clause 9 builds on Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 by requiring EROs to take certain minimum steps to ensure that eligible persons who meet the necessary requirements set out under the clause are included on registers. They already have certain powers to remove ineligible persons from the register in specified circumstances. So, for example, where the elector moves to another local authority, and where the ERO receives official notification from the elector's new ERO that the elector no longer resides at an address in their area, he will be removed. Removal can be done via the monthly update to the register, and can take three to six weeks, as noble Lords will know, depending on what stage in the electoral cycle the decision is taken.
	Clause 12(5) imposes a duty on EROs to remove from the register persons who are not, or are no longer, eligible to be registered to vote. Clause 12 strengthens the ERO's removal powers by enabling them to act upon any objections made to a person's entry on the register, and to initiate an investigation into a person's entry on the register if the ERO is in doubt about whether the person is entitled to be registered. We think that the combination of the new duty clause and Clause 12, linked back to Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act, builds the picture noble Lords seek, which is to ensure the registers are complete and accurate. The difficulty comes from looking at legislation in isolation, which is why I went back to parliamentary counsel and asked him to demonstrate to me that if you add in these new issues and areas, in a sense you have a complete picture, and not the picture that the noble Baroness fears is skewed in one direction and not the other.
	I was convinced by parliamentary counsel. I hope that noble Lords will accept that there is no question but that the objective is shared between us and that the noble Baroness's concerns are of critical importance. Only those eligible to vote should be on the register. We believe that when noble Lords look back at the 1983 Act, they will see that the definitions ensure that registers are complete and accurate, which is what we all want to achieve.
	I hope that, on the basis that we have looked very carefully at the matter and are convinced that we now have a balanced approach, the noble Baroness will feel reassured and able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. Who am I to argue with parliamentary counsel? There seems to be quite a bit of flexibility in what electoral registration officers do. Some are tighter than others in trying to ensure that their electoral register is accurate. It may be that the ones with the greater flexibility are the ones who are causing us the most concern. However, as the Minister has reassured me and as we now have that in Hansard, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Garden: moved Amendment No. 14:
	After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
	"PROVISIONS AS TO MEMBERS OF FORCES AND SERVICE VOTERS
	(1) Section 59 of the 1983 Act (supplemental provisions as to members of forces and service voters) is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
	(2) For subsection (3) substitute—
	"(3) Arrangements shall be made by the appropriate government department for securing that (so far as circumstances permit) every person having a service qualification by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) of section 14(1) shall—
	(a) have an effective opportunity of exercising from time to time as occasion may require the rights conferred on him by this Act in relation to registering to vote, and in relation to voting in person, by post or by proxy;
	(b) receive such instructions as to the effect of this Act and any regulations made under it, and such other assistance, as may be reasonably sufficient in connection with the exercise by him and any wife of his or, as the case may be, by her and any husband of hers, or by any civil partner, of any rights conferred on them as mentioned above; and
	(c) have a record maintained by the appropriate government department of his or her electoral registration option updated on an annual basis.""

Lord Garden: My Lords, it is with both surprise and regret that I find myself moving this amendment. I had expected that, by now, the Government would have had a well considered new clause on service voters. That is certainly what we had been led to expect during the past year.
	I have spoken of the problems of registration and voting for members of the Armed Forces and their partners on many occasions. Following the problems during the last general election, I drew your Lordships' attention to the matter in a debate on the electoral system on 26 May 2005. I then explained how changes to electoral systems in 2001 had led to a decline in registration of service voters.
	Whereas in the past registration had lasted until the service voter notified a change in circumstances, under the new legislation, annual registration was required in line with civilian practice. The itinerant lifestyle of the Armed Forces made that difficult in practice and, anyway, the majority of those in the services were unaware of the implications of the change. I also drew attention to the effect of the extension to the postal voting system. Even those in the services who register continue to have a problem with obtaining postal ballot forms in time to complete and return them when they are serving overseas. Again, the chance to vote is lost if they have not appointed a suitable person as a proxy.
	I have been in many meetings with the Electoral Commission, the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Ministry of Defence, electoral registration officers and unofficial representatives of the services during the past year. Everyone has said that they recognise the problems and that something must be done. While she was responsible in this area, Harriet Harman said that there was to be "zero tolerance" over this issue. That reflected the Prime Minister's earlier statement on the Jeremy Vine BBC Radio 2 show on 16 April 2005 that he would sort the problem out.
	I have raised the issue at Second Reading and in Committee. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for her support at every stage. I have consulted her Bill team, who have also been extremely helpful. Yet, here we are at Report. The Minister has indicated that there remain some problems with both my amendment and Amendment No. 15 in this group, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, which specifically considers ways to strengthen the registration system and has my support.
	We are more than a year on from the last general election. More than 250,000 voters—those in the Armed Forces and their partners—have problems in registering and, subsequently, voting. Problems have continued in the recent local elections. In answer to my Written Question, the noble Baroness told me on 4 May that the only new action that had been taken to facilitate voting for those deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq was to print some more leaflets. We might have expected some special postal arrangements as an interim measure. Also, the key targets set out for British forces post offices were announced in a Written Statement on 9 May this year. That was a missed opportunity to place a duty for speedy transmission of electoral communications. As I was coming into the Chamber this afternoon, I learnt of postal ballot forms arriving in Iraq on 4 May—the very day of the election. There was no chance of their getting back in time for the count. So we have not made much progress.
	The Ministry of Defence did a survey on service voting as it had promised to do. The results have been available to it since March, but in answer to my questions, I am told that they are still being analysed, so we do not have the benefit of them.
	My amendment would put the onus on the Ministry of Defence to manage this problem. Only it knows where all its personnel are located, both permanently and temporarily on deployment. Only the Ministry of Defence has the logistics to ensure that, once registered, its personnel can get voting papers to and from electoral registration officers in time for their vote to count. Only the Ministry of Defence can monitor the success of our efforts. The three strands of the amendment put the onus on the MoD for making registration easier, making voting possible and monitoring the effectiveness of the system. I was pleased to see that the Electoral Commission, in its helpful notes to today's debate, has supported my amendment and stated that whatever we do about registration, the need for indexing—as I have called it—to monitor effectiveness will be an important element of it.
	Deployed service is much more frequent now than it was in the past. We should remember also that service men and women who do not go on the register and are stationed overseas have no Member of Parliament whom they can call their own when they are in difficulty.
	This lack of government progress in an area where there is cross-party agreement, support from the Electoral Commission and a clear need for action is a puzzle to me. I hope that the Minister is now ready to accept these amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will understand that there is not a tissue paper's thickness between me and the noble Lord, Lord Garden on this issue. Indeed, we jostled to be first on the Marshalled List to move the amendments. He won this time, but may not do so on another occasion. I joke only about that, because this is a very important issue to which we return.
	I acknowledge the discussions that the noble Lord, Lord Garden, has had and the work that he has done, but I remind the House that when the Bill started in the House of Commons it was Members of my party who started the attack on the fact that service voting was a shambles. We received assurances from the then Solicitor-General, Harriet Harman, that this matter would be looked at. She accepted that there was a problem and hoped that things could be put right in the House of Lords. That was the situation as the Bill left the House of Commons.
	We are now on Report and we are still without anything from the Government that suggests that we are likely to achieve what I know the Minister is now utterly convinced that we will achieve one way or another before this Bill leaves this House; that is, the measures which we are putting forward today in both these amendments. The two amendments are companionable and fit together to ensure, first, the proper registration of service voters and, consequently and secondly, a proper system to enable service voters to vote.
	It is the fault of the Representation of the People Act 2000 that what was a perfectly well tried and tested system of service voting came unstuck. The amendment would have that Act overturned to enable us to return to the Representation of the People Act 1983, which placed a duty on the appropriate government department to ensure that members of the Armed Forces were given an effective opportunity to exercise their right to vote. You cannot exercise your right to vote if you are not registered. If you are being moved around the world, from one place to another, and you do not know from one year to the next where you are going to be, it is exceedingly difficult, unless somebody helps you, to have an effective opportunity to exercise your vote because you are not registered.
	So, we are far down the line now. Amendment No. 15 is tabled in conjunction with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Garden, who rightly stated in Committee that these are not either/or amendments. They work entirely in tandem, as I have said, which is why there is not a tissue paper between us.
	We should notice that the number of service personnel registered has fallen by 120,000 since the 2000 Act. There were 140,000 service voters registered, but at the 2005 election—as far as anyone knew, given the way that registrations are now spattered around the place—only 25,000 members of the Armed Forces were in a position to vote. As the noble Lord, Lord Garden, has stated, the explanation of how they should have been able to vote arrived, together with the leaflets and their postal votes, within 10 days of voting taking place. That was far too late for anybody to do anything about it, so there was complete disenfranchisement of our service personnel. If we can get such personnel to Iraq and Afghanistan to defend democracy in those countries, then there must surely be a way to enable them to take part in the democratic process.
	There is a mismatch between the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which was responsible for the Representation of the People Act 2000, and the Ministry of Defence, which has decided that it is just an ordinary employer—and, as such, has no responsibility to ensure that its personnel are registered. Since members of the Armed Forces relinquish a proportion of their civil liberties in order to establish democratic rights overseas and defend liberties at home, it is ironic that they should be the single most disenfranchised group at the last election.
	I know that the Minister has made efforts to persuade the Ministry of Defence to achieve the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Garden, and myself. Like the noble Lord, Lord Garden, I am extremely disappointed that today we have only a wimpish amendment from the Government to extend the registration of service voters from one year to five on an ordinary register. We need more than that; a proper amendment, to bring us back to where we all know we ought to be. Service voters ought to be guaranteed the right to vote by their employer, which is the country.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I support these amendments on which the noble Lord, Lord Garden, and my noble friend Lady Hanham have spoken eloquently. As per my noble friend, this really is an important issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Garden, said, after the fiasco of the last election—where almost 200,000 service men and women were denied the chance to vote—the Prime Minister promised to rectify an obviously failing system. Yet we still await any progress on that. That is a betrayal of our Armed Forces and I hope that the Minister will give a clear assurance that the Government really are taking this point seriously.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I add my support to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Garden. I speak as a former Adjutant-General, where I was head of personnel to the Army. In that post I was responsible for personnel matters including the registration of people for election. All I can say is that up until then we were concerned that the difficulties being put in the way of service men made it virtually impossible for them to vote, and that we were pleased about the progress being made to enable them to do so through the use of proxy and postal voting. It was therefore disappointing to see that what we had achieved had been reversed. While I was in post, we proposed that the measures now being put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Garden, should be implemented by the Ministry of Defence. They would aid the whole process of registration and it was perfectly possible to do this within the chain of command operated by the Ministry of Defence. No other ministry needed to be involved.
	I hope very much that the Government will accept these amendments, thus enabling the effective enfranchisement of service men in the future.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, we still have to come to postal voting, about which Her Majesty's Government are obsessed, but the weaknesses of which were further exposed in the local government elections held a week and a half ago. I declare a forward interest in that matter as a voter in Tower Hamlets and, I have to say, as a voter in person. Sixty or so years ago, the then Home Secretary Herbert Morrison went to a great deal of trouble to make sure that British service men abroad were able to vote in the 1945 general election, so much so that although polling day was 5 July 1945, to enable the votes to arrive the results were not actually counted until 26 July. As my noble friend said from the Front Bench, Her Majesty's Government are asking a lot of British service men today, so it does not seem too much to ask of Her Majesty's Government that they should make it possible for service men fighting in the interests of democracy to vote in the democratic process itself. Anything short of that is a casual insult. For the reasons given on all sides of the House I do not hold the Minister herself responsible, but she must remember a service man's metaphor: the Minister in the front line for the particular period carries the responsibility on behalf of the whole of Her Majesty's Government at that stage.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, not only do I carry the responsibility, I totally accept it, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, would expect. I also accept that this and previous Governments have expected a huge amount from our armed services. They have risen to all the challenges they have been given and I pay tribute to them. Lastly, I accept the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Garden, arising from his own experiences, and those so passionately expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. I heard her interview on the radio this morning and I pay tribute to her comments.
	We are all searching for a way through this and I accept the principles also set out by the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Astor of Hever: it is important to ensure that our service personnel, wherever they are, are registered to vote and thus able to exercise their right to do so. There is not a tissue between the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Garden, as there is not a tissue between noble Lords and myself on this. However, it is for me to find a solution.
	Perhaps I may deal with some of the figures cited today. I want to correct the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, on the figure of 120,000 only because it is important to make the point. While the figure is right, the reason for the fall is that the 2000 Act enabled people to register without making a service declaration. That is why the figure has dropped quite considerably. I hasten to add that I do not seek in any way to diminish the problem, but it is important to know precisely where figures such as this come from.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, spoke with passion on Amendment No. 15, but she will recall that the arrangements are the result of the recommendations of the Howarth all-party working group. It concluded that the old system had resulted in low registration rates and led to service personnel becoming disassociated from the constituencies in which they were registered, which in effect reduced the likelihood that they would vote. The group further pointed out that electoral registration officers faced problems in identifying and communicating with service personnel; that it led to inaccuracies in the electoral register; increased the likelihood of electoral fraud and unjustifiably inflated the register in those areas. In Committee I pointed out that in Westminster, for example, 90 per cent of service personnel who registered decided to do so as ordinary electors, because if they register as service declarants, they do not enjoy the benefits of ordinary electors, such as receiving credit or obtaining a car parking space, which in parts of London is very important, particularly for those with families.
	I am not inclined, whatever we decide, to go back to that. The Howarth group, which was all-party, said decisively where the problems were. I completely understand that the noble Baroness would say, "That is fine and dandy, but what you have now will not do". I accept that, but I do not want to go backwards. I want to find a way through. Noble Lords are absolutely right to say very firmly, but with characteristic grace, that we have been talking about this for far too long. Here we are, on Report in your Lordships' House, and I do not have the ability to fulfil the requirements.
	I withdrew the government amendment that the noble Baroness referred to because I want to put a proposition to your Lordships' House. I hesitate to do so, because I have already proposed this once to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and she quite rightly said, "Well, that is all fine and dandy, but I am going to vote in any event". I will try my luck again, because the situation is a little different. We have a new Secretary of State for Defence. He has asked me to come and meet him. I have a date to see him in my diary for next Tuesday. He is away this week, on his duties, and therefore could not see me. He has indicated that he would like to see me.
	I will put on record the particular form of words for what I said I would do. We remain concerned that service personnel are not being registered to vote. I have recently raised this issue with the new Secretary of State for Defence. He is committed to exploring this. I am going to meet him to discuss the issue further after today's debate, with a view to coming back to the House on Third Reading with a workable solution, which will address the concerns of noble Lords.
	I know that noble Lords quite rightly feel that we are late in the day for achieving this. I have to do this in the spirit of enabling my right honourable friend, the new Secretary of State for Defence, to consider this issue again. He has indicated that he is fully willing to do so with me. I want to enable him to fulfil that commitment to me.
	I need to bring forward a workable package of amendments. The noble Baroness described the amendment that I withdrew as "feeble" or something similar. I take her point, because on its own it goes only a little way and by no means does anything very constructive. However, if I can I would like to bring it back as part of a package, because everyone accepts that that is what we should do.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I heard the Minister's assurance that there is to be a discussion with the new Secretary of State for Defence about the registration issue. Could she confirm that it will also be about the voting issue, which is separate and different?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it will be about all the issues raised in all the amendments before your Lordships' House today. My ambition is that we will be able to find a workable solution that meets the criteria that noble Lords have set for me in the amendments and in the debate. If I am not successful in doing that, I am quite sure that these amendments will appear on Third Reading and noble Lords will test the opinion of the House, which will make its own decision.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I must ask one practical question. I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Given that the discussion will not be until next Tuesday, which I think is the day that we are due to have Third Reading, according to the present programme, is the Minister proposing therefore to defer Third Reading? If not, what happens if the noble Baroness gets the go-ahead in principle, but the amendments are not ready at that stage?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have no date for Third Reading. The noble Lord, as always, is ahead of me. Clearly I cannot allow that situation to arise. My commitment is that I will either have come up with a workable solution and appropriate amendments by Third Reading or I will not. Noble Lords will know in plenty of time to table their own amendments. I apologise that I cannot be more specific about dates, but I do not have those dates at this stage.
	The basis upon which I ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments is an understanding that I wish to have one more discussion with the new Secretary of State for Defence. He is perfectly willing to do that and either I will have addressed this issue to your Lordships' satisfaction or your Lordships will tell me your own satisfaction.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, returning to the question of timing, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, I think Third Reading will be on 24 May and the Minister's discussions will be on 23 May. This will leave a very short time for the Government to produce appropriate amendments or for us to consider them. It does not give us much time and I wonder whether the Minister will be more assisted by the House making a decision today.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is for your Lordships to determine what you wish to do. I have made it clear that I shall ensure there is enough time. If that means that I have to move my meeting, I will do so. I do not have a date for Third Reading. I will ensure that your Lordships' House is informed properly before I do anything. If the date for Third Reading is that day, I will ensure that my meeting is brought forward to accommodate your Lordships.
	I very clearly wish to address this problem—as the Government and I have indicated—and it will be for me to worry about timing. I will ensure that I do this in time for noble Lords to be informed of what is happening. I have no desire at all to do anything that could be seen as either bouncing your Lordships' House or failing in my obligations. I simply would not do that. I will ensure that the timings work and that I get proper information on this to the House—and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Garden, in good time for them to determine whether I have found a solution or whether they wish to table amendments. I will guarantee to do that. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, who, as always, has been very gracious in trying to move the business forward. This issue is of such major importance that I do not want to play with it if there is any prospect of arriving at a workable solution. I do not claim enormous expertise or that I have drafted my amendment exactly right, and I can see that little parts need to be joined up.
	I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for his intervention. We had not spoken before but, from his experience as Adjutant-General, he has given me great encouragement that my indexing and monitoring system is practical and possible. That is very useful. I am also encouraged that not only is there a new Secretary of State for Defence but there is a new junior Minister in Mr Tom Watson, who wrote an extraordinary pamphlet for the Fabian Society in 2000 about the importance of everyone voting and how it should be made compulsory. So I think we may have friends in the areas where life has been difficult in the past.
	Because this issue is so important and because of the assurances given by the Minister, even at this eleventh hour I should like to wait to see whether we can get a perfect solution that we all agree on and that will hold when the Bill goes back to the other place. That is very dear to me and I do not want to go fast and lose it at the last moment. Under those circumstances, with the assurances the Minister has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment until Third Reading.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
	Clause 10 [Anonymous registration]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 16:
	Page 7, line 14, leave out "as may be prescribed" and insert "prescribed in subsection (9A) below"

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, in Committee, the Minister provided an interesting answer to the question of anonymous registration, and I have had time to think about it. The amendment was tabled at that stage to clarify that on applying for and failing to achieve anonymous registration, an individual would not immediately be excluded from the register. The Minister also gave an indication of the kind of evidence that would be accepted to prove an individual's vulnerability. Having considered that evidence, I feel that our amendment would achieve exactly what the Minister set out. She mentioned a signed statement from a police officer, an injunction or non-molestation order. All those come under the description of possible evidence described in new Section 9A. The amendments would also insert a provision into the Bill to make it clear to those applying for anonymous registration that, were their application to fail, they would not face automatic inclusion on the register but would be entitled to apply to count on the register in the normal way, should they so wish.
	I do not wish to press the amendments, but it seems sensible to include a provision for specific evidence to be brought forward. I am also interested to hear what the consultation procedure has produced, as this was an important part of civil protection. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising these important issues. In reality, the only difference between the noble Baroness and me is the question of where we put this—in primary or secondary legislation. The critical factor for the Government was to make sure that we had the flexibility that secondary legislation gives us to be clear about what kind of evidence ought to be available.
	Noble Lords who were present in Committee or who have had the benefit of reading Hansard will know that the purpose of anonymous registration is to protect vulnerable people whose safety may genuinely be at risk if their address were made public. It is not an ex-directory system; people cannot say, "I do not want to be part of it, I wish to opt out". It is specifically for those in danger. We have indicated—Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 relate to the evidence that a person must provide—that we want to ensure that an independent witness or official body will support the fact that the individual may be in danger. We agreed that an applicant must provide evidence in support of an application and that the evidence has to be provided by a body qualified to attest that an applicant's safety is at risk. As I have indicated, we want to keep the flexibility in determining what evidence is sufficient to support an application by affirmative order, allowing for parliamentary scrutiny and flexibility in the evidence that can be prescribed.
	We have no desire to do anything other than debate the issues fully, but we want to be flexible about what they might be and recognise that circumstances may change. For example, one of the groups that we are in the middle of consulting is the Network for Surviving Stalking. We do not have any results of consultation yet, but I am keen to keep the noble Baroness in touch with what comes forward long before we get to the point of putting down any regulations. It is not that many years since stalking was not something that was described or thought about as a particular issue. It has become an issue, certainly in the past 20 years, during which we have, in my experience, taken it much more seriously and recognised it as a genuine problem. Having the flexibility in regulations would enable us to think about people who could be at risk in particular circumstances and think about who could provide evidence.
	We are talking to Refuge, Women's Aid and other bodies that deal with victims of domestic violence. There will be issues relating to the police and the protection of those who are served with an injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or a non-molestation order granted under the Family Law Act 1996. Signed statements from police officers would be the kind of evidence that we are describing.
	We hope that we will be able to pass the regulations and implement anonymous registration shortly after the Summer Recess, when we will be able to be clearer with the noble Baroness and noble Lords about exactly what type of evidence we wish to bring forward. It will be evidence that noble Lords will identify with quickly and understand to be of great importance. The secondary regulation part of it enables us to be flexible and perhaps to bring in other bodies that may be able to provide verification or indeed recognise circumstances of particular groups of people or individuals whom we are unaware of at the present time.
	Amendment No. 17, as the noble Baroness will be aware, requires a registration officer to register a person in the usual way if their anonymous registration application fails. Although I can see what the noble Baroness is trying to get to, in Committee I tried to indicate why we felt that we had to oppose the amendment. Because the scheme is designed to protect the vulnerable whose safety may be at risk if their name and address were to be included in the event of their application failing, I do not think that they would apply in the first place. Under the present scheme, people would apply for anonymous registration, and, if we felt that they did not warrant it, they would then be invited to register as normal. If we were to say, "If your anonymous registration fails, we will register you regardless", that would probably deter people who would not fail because their case would be so clear-cut. If the individual was a victim of violence or intimidation, we would risk the possibility that they would not take the risk of being put on in other circumstances. It is difficult for us to do that because it would be an undesirable outcome. It is better that, if someone's registration fails, they are sent the annual canvass form in the normal way in due course, which will be their method of registering.
	I can see the principle behind the noble Baroness's suggestion, but I hope that I have explained why we would prefer the provision to be in secondary legislation and why we would be nervous about the automatic transfer across. It would deter from registering people who are victims and whom we should do all that we can to encourage to participate in our democracy.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As I said at the outset, I did not intend to press the amendment but wanted to hear the Minister's response. I accept that this will be done under secondary legislation.
	The noble Baroness spoke about the intention for registration and said that if an anonymous registration was opposed, that person would be invited to register. That is sensible, because then the choice is theirs. They can choose whether to register or, presumably, they can make another application for anonymous registration.
	I am grateful to the Minister for her reply; I am satisfied with it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
	Clause 11 [Alterations of registers: pending elections]:
	[Amendments Nos. 19 to 21 not moved.]

Lord Goodhart: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 22:
	After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
	"MANNER OF VOTING OF PATIENTS DETAINED IN MENTAL HOSPITALS
	Omit paragraph 2(6)(a) of Schedule 4 to the Representation of the People Act 2000 (c. 2) (absent voting in Great Britain)."

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in view of the amendments in this group that the Government have tabled, it is not my intention to move either Amendment No. 22 or Amendment No. 23.

[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Before Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
	"REGISTRATION: POSTAL VOTING
	(1) The provisions in section 13 shall apply in the first instance to those registering for either a postal or proxy vote subject to subsection (2).
	(2) Until and unless the electoral registration officer is satisfied that the requirements of section 13 can be met by the electorate, those requirements shall not extend to persons voting in person at the polling station.
	(3) An elector may only be added to the register as a postal or proxy voter if he has met the requirements of section 13."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, there is probably an overlap between this group of amendments, which is enormous, and the following group. In moving Amendment No. 24, I shall speak to my amendments in the group and see how it goes, as we are in an interesting situation.
	The amendments are rather mixed, and I do not intend to spend too much time going through them. I think that there has been a mistake with a few of them: Amendments Nos. 34 and 37 appear to duplicate Amendments Nos. 35 and 36, so I shall not move one pair. Due to the consequences of the Government's position on clause stand part, I am afraid that the thrust behind this group of amendments has disappeared. However, I would like to speak to them to debate the issues that would have been addressed were Clause 13 to survive.
	There is the welcome addition of Amendment No. 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elder, which is why there is an overlap between the groups. That amendment proposes having personal identifiers on all postal votes; it would be a positive addition to the Bill, but we are not sure that it goes far enough. A few amendments in the group are covered by Amendment No. 26, and I shall not move them. Amendment No. 29 would ensure that the Secretary of State would not have the power to repeal provisions made for personal identifiers. That worry has now disappeared, so we will not be pursuing the amendment. The aims of Amendments Nos. 30, 33 and 88 have been achieved by the noble Lord's proposals. The rest of the amendments in the group stand.
	Amendment No. 31 comes back to the discussion that we had in Committee with regard to electors who do not correctly answer the questions put to them at the polling station. Under this proposal, they would be provided with a tendered ballot paper that would allow their vote to be counted only where the result is so close that it is considered a dead heat. Amendment No. 31 would leave out that provision so that, if an elector provided the wrong answer to a date of birth question, for example, they would not be allowed to vote. The amendment was tabled in order to ensure that there was no way that anyone could steal another's vote, even if it was only a tendered ballot paper. After further consideration, I think that it comes down to the question of whether tendered ballots are correct in principle. It is easy to imagine a situation where the electoral register has registered a date of birth incorrectly, which would result in a voter being disfranchised were it not for the tendered ballot as a last resort.
	The question posed by the amendment is "Do we give people the benefit of the doubt and allow them to use a tendered ballot, even though there is a strong possibility that they may not be the person that they claim to be, or do we crack down completely on fraud and state that it is a civil duty on an individual to ensure that their details are correct on the register?". I am tempted to err on the side of caution, but that may be tested on hearing the Minister's response. I apologise for that preamble to the main point of the amendments.
	Amendment No. 24 would introduce personal identifiers on all postal and proxy votes and come with a proviso. The electoral registration officer would have a duty to consider the effect of personal identifiers on the electorate in subsection (2), which is a position that we are prepared to take if the amendment to which we will come later, on all-out individual registration, is not accepted.
	Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 96 would introduce national insurance numbers into the requirements for registration for postal voting, while Amendment No. 28 would include personal identifiers as a requirement for registering to vote in the normal way. Amendment No. 28 is intended to have the same effect as adding in national insurance numbers to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elder, but we were keen to table as early as possible and decided not to table more amendments at the same time.
	It is a point about which we on these Benches feel strongly. Noble Lords will recall the discussion in Committee on national insurance numbers. In our meetings since Committee, the Minister has said that it might be worth talking to the Electoral Commission on the matter. Northern Ireland has tried and tested the use of national insurance numbers, and it has been a great success, so I wonder whether the Minister has any further thoughts on potential consultation.
	We had a long discussion on signatures in Committee. I suggested that they were not robust in and of themselves. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Elder, has seen fit to introduce both signature and date of birth in his amendment. It is important that both of those should be there. However, we still feel that because national insurance numbers are used by anyone who claims benefits, student loans and so on they would be a useful addition.
	I would like to make it clear that using identity cards for registration purposes and using national insurance numbers are different proposals, and I would not advocate the use of the former. National insurance numbers already exist and are in use. Most important, they do not represent biometric data, so they would not be the intrusive information contained on the ID cards. The crucial point is that they are already in circulation for a number of bureaucratic functions and they are entirely unique.
	I am raising in the amendments the possibility that the use of identifiers in postal votes should ultimately be extended generally by order and that we will be considering further the use of national insurance numbers, but that will possibly come later with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elder. I beg to move.

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, in view of the groupings and notwithstanding the helpful indications given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about some of her later amendments, I must point out to your Lordships at this early stage that, if Amendment No. 28 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 29 or 30, and if Amendment No. 34 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 35.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 25, 41, 95, 119 and 124 in this group stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rennard. With the leave of the House, I will speak to all of them. In doing so, however, it will also be necessary for me to discuss some issues relating to the next group, which includes Amendments Nos. 45 to 49 and 121 in our name.
	The Government are now substantially altering their original position on this part of the Bill. Their position was that Clause 13 provided for what is a form of individual registration, because each elector had to provide personal identifiers—their signature and date of birth—before they could be entered on the register. We agreed that it was not necessary to include national insurance numbers as personal identifiers. We accepted that there were special reasons that made it appropriate in Northern Ireland but not in Great Britain.
	The Government originally made it clear that Clause 13 would not be brought into effect without piloting, as provided for by Clauses 15 to 18. We were unhappy with these proposals in two respects. First, we believed that individual registration, or at least household registration forms signed by each member of the household who was being registered, were essential and should not be delayed pending pilots. We therefore objected to the proposal for pilot schemes, which might take some years to evaluate. The pilots have in fact now disappeared. However, we recognised that some delay was necessary before individual registration for everyone involving personal identifiers could be brought into force. We therefore pressed for transitional arrangements, as proposed by the Electoral Commission, requiring applications for postal or proxy votes to contain identifiers before it was possible to roll out Clause 13 in full.
	The Government have now dropped Clause 13, and have therefore eliminated from the Bill any provision bringing in individual registration with personal identifiers for all electors. That remains a matter of concern to us. If, as I understand they intend to, the Government accept the noble Lord, Lord Elder's amendment, they have also agreed that applicants for absent votes must provide personal identifiers. The Government have therefore in effect accepted the transitional arrangements but removed the objective for which the transition was originally proposed: that is, registration with personal identifiers for everyone on the register. Under this Bill, it will be registration only for those who apply for absent votes.
	We therefore have one step, in the removal of the proposal for pilot schemes, in the right direction, and one step, in the removal of Clause 13, which we see as being in the wrong direction, because it means that further primary legislation will be necessary before it is possible to bring into effect the provision by all people on the electoral register of personal identifiers.
	There is no doubt that electoral fraud has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. There were serious problems, which we are all aware of, in the local elections in 2005, and there have been a number of allegations of fraud in this year's local elections, though investigations into those are still ongoing.
	Postal voting is the most obvious source of fraud, and requiring personal identifiers will diminish it. It is not the only cause of fraud, though. For example—and there are a number of other ways of doing this—it is possible to register imaginary people as living at a particular address, and then get someone not on the register in that district or constituency to cast a vote in their name at a polling station. Requiring personal identifiers would not make that impossible, but would make it easier to detect and would deter it.
	We would therefore have preferred to keep Clauses 13 and 14 on the face of the Bill, while removing Clauses 15 to 18, but to add our own amendments to create the transitional arrangements as proposed by the Electoral Commission. In Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Elder, supported our Amendment No. 41, but has now produced in his own name Amendment No. 26, which leads to the next group and which would require personal identifiers to be given when an absent vote application is made.
	The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Elder, would be entirely appropriate, as the Bill abandons the concept of personal identifiers for all registered electors. However, we are seriously concerned about the abandonment of the general requirement for personal identifiers. We have not been consulted by the Government on that, and I would like to know why. If there is no satisfactory answer, we may move our own amendment. If we are satisfied with the Government's answer, we will support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elder, and the government amendments in the following group.
	I should add that Amendment No. 95 is independent of the other amendments in this group. Clause 37 inserts a new rule into Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, which requires a postal voting statement to be in the prescribed form, including a provision for the form to be signed. Surely, it should also include, as Amendment No. 95 proposes, the voter's personal identifier and the voter's date of birth.
	I am sorry that the noble Baroness is surprised by the fact that I have received no element of consultation on this, but I can assure her that I have not. It is possible that it was sent to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and, as a result of his attendance at a conference abroad, failed to get through to me, but it certainly did not reach me.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, courtesy of the Sunday papers, I have learnt in the past 24 hours that the former chief executive of Birmingham, where fraud in electoral matters was widespread in the course of the past couple of years, has now become the director of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.
	I am conscious that I may be unduly subject to ad hominem or ad mulierem arguments. However, as an inner-city MP, I had experience of that directorate for four awful years between 1997 and 2001, first with a Minister who left the Government, after which I had zero confidence in the Minister who succeeded him; and, secondly, in the new Parliament, with the Prime Minister running out of confidence in that Minister's successor, who had to leave the Government in the same way. I was immensely relieved when Mr Desmond Browne MP was then given the responsibility to the House on behalf of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, and I am delighted at his subsequent rapid promotion in this Parliament, first to Chief Secretary and now to Secretary of State for Defence.
	What we debated at Second Reading was such an awful story, in the context of the Bill, that one could not help feeling that anything would be better. I have been delighted by the insistence from those on these Benches and the Liberal Democrat Benches on the proposed improvement in terms of the next set of elections. I have referred to my attitude to the right honourable Desmond Browne MP, as he now is. As demonstrated on a series of occasions, even in the conduct of this Bill, I have great respect for the Minister and I retain the confidence that she will see intelligent reason in at least some of the heterogeneous amendments in this group.

Lord Elder: My Lords, I rise somewhat tentatively, because these two groups of amendments seem to be coming together and it seems appropriate to speak to Amendment No. 26 now, but if any noble Lord wishes to stop me, perhaps this would be a good time to do so. Some helpful things have been said about my Amendment No. 26, so perhaps I should proceed.
	My amendment seeks to resolve serious questions that have arisen on the integrity of the absent voting system. We all accept that they must be resolved. My amendment proposes two identifiers and I happily accept that case—signature and date of birth—attached to every application for postal, proxy and proxy postal votes. Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the amendment deal with absent voters for a definite or indefinite period, for a particular election and for proxy postal votes. The requirement for an applicant to provide a signature if there is any disability or inability to do so is dispensed with, and EROs are required to keep such records for checking them against actual votes.
	Subsection (4) deals with circumstances where new signatures are required, whether as a result of a change of name or change of signature over time, and sets out the circumstances in which the identifiers can be made available to others—notably to other EROs and to candidates and agents in elections, to help them inspect the evidence in the event that votes are disputed with the returning officer.
	The separation of absent voters as an issue from the more general question of individual registration is the right way forward. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, and, to some extent, he was following the line of argument originally used by the Electoral Commission, which, more or less, was that the clearing up of postal votes could be achieved only if there was individual registration across the whole country. I never believed that that was the case and this is a more sensible way to proceed. It is the question of postal voting that needs to be resolved. There have been no corresponding doubts about the validity of voting at polling stations.
	In the mean time, there will quite enough for electoral registration officers to do as regards CORE, the other changes in the Bill—such as setting performance standards for EROs—and with the nationwide introduction of individual registration for all absent voters. It is not appropriate or sensible to pile too much by way of new responsibilities and requirements on people and changes such as individual registration should be introduced gradually and more sensibly. I have always imagined that the Electoral Commission, following this change in postal voting and the other changes in the Bill, would want to reflect—and should reflect—on what that would mean for future registration. I would expect the commission to come back with further recommendations. It might then look at the best way of introducing individual registration—I do not know and I would not wish to prejudge that, but Amendment No. 26 would provide the right degree of scale and evidence on which the commission could make further recommendations.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, the proposals concerning absent voters were much discussed in Grand Committee and there was general support for them. I appreciate that she and some of her colleagues wish to add a third identifier. I do not agree with that, although I know that the Liberal Democrats very much wanted to fit that in, so that postal voting would be one of the outcomes of individual registration rather than an end in itself. Despite that, I hope that there is general agreement on the need to clear up the biggest single problem in terms of perceptions of honesty and integrity in the system—which, I believe, my amendment would achieve. In due course, we may see what the Electoral Commission might say.
	My final point in relation to future developments, if my amendment is accepted, is that it is important that, whatever the future government regulations will be as to how many votes should be checked, it should be done evenly across the whole country. I have no doubt that it should be done at a 100 per cent level to start with. If there is a decision to reduce that, it should not be targeted at constituencies where there are doubts, but be carried out absolutely fairly and absolutely across the whole country.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am possibly replying to two groups at the same time or possibly not.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, we now have the confusion that I thought we were getting into; the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested that we moved all these amendments together. Perhaps it would be helpful if I responded to the amendments that I have spoken to and took out the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elder. It might be helpful to the House if I indicate at this stage that we are perfectly in agreement with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elder. It moves us a long way forward, in that we now would have two identifiers on postal or proxy voting. This does not mean that I might not come back to the situation on national insurance numbers at another stage.
	However, for today's purposes, there seems to me to be agreement that it is important that there should at least be identifiers of a signature and a date of birth. That is one of the stumbling blocks that we have all seen in this part of the Bill. I am happy to accept that that is the situation. If I try to push it a bit further at the next stage, that is up to me. We have moved a long way down the road with this amendment. I am glad that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elder—and my amendment at an earlier stage—were sufficiently coherent to have been able to do that.
	A number of the other amendments, which I have tabled, are on national insurance registration, but I will not bother with those again today. For the others, I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for helping to resolve this. Confusion is not involved; it is simply that there is a big debate to be had. I want to say a couple of things for the benefit of any noble Lord who, perhaps, was not around in Grand Committee, and who is possibly slightly confused about what the different issues are. The principle addressed by the Bill, and in the debates in your Lordships' House and in another place, is about how one uses personal identifiers—which could be signatures or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, proposed, national insurance numbers—to enable us to tackle this fundamental problem of fraud. A number of ways of doing this have arisen in our deliberations, as have a number of ways of how we test or roll out these ideas.
	Noble Lords will know that the Government's position was that we felt very strongly about the impact of putting a personal identifier across the board for the registration of voting, having consulted with a range of people, particularly those in another place who are elected and who understand the issues well but also many others. There was a genuine concern that, unless remedial action was taken against it, we could find that the numbers of those who would register would fall. That is not something we wish to see happen in a democracy. The Government's original answer was to pilot it to see what they can find out. Noble Lords will know that there were many debates about how one got the right kind of pilot in the right kind of area to get a genuine reflection of what would happen if there was a national rollout. There were great difficulties—I will not go into the detail—which noble Lords explored fully in Grand Committee.
	The other proposal from the Electoral Commission, supported in your Lordships' House, was the idea of the transitional system. That was, essentially, a voluntary system, where you could choose to put down your personal identifier. I have always felt a difficulty with that because, as it is voluntary, you cannot test it; those people who are quite comfortable with putting down additional information will do so, while those who are not will not. Also, at a time when we are trying to simplify the process—not least for the forms that people receive—we would have the situation where, instead of saying on the form, "Please fill in the following information", it would say, "Please fill in the following information, but not if you do not want to". It did not actually get us very far. I feel very strongly about this—it involves genuine, proper research into understanding what people do. The only argument for it would be that people might get used to it. The people who might get used to it, however, are those who would do it anyway. It does not give us what we really need.
	In all our discussions, we return time and again to the critical issue of postal voting. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, again raised this issue with us today. I know that there is great concern right across the House about these issues. The noble Lord, Lord Elder, tabled his amendment, which I know is an amendment that transmogrified from that of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard—he is not with us today as he is visiting exotic places, I understand—and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. This is, in a sense, a collective amendment. I hope that my noble friend will not mind my saying that, but it is based on what has been done across all the political parties in the best tradition of our parliamentary system.
	The amendment is of great interest to us. We have discussed it with the Electoral Commission and have also had the benefit of discussing it with noble Lords. It tackles the question of postal voting by putting in additional safeguards. I agree with my noble friend that, to begin with, the system should be checked 100 per cent but, if it becomes obvious that we do not need to do so in the future, we should have the capacity to reconsider that and save electoral registration officers time and energy. But certainly we must begin the process from that presumption. The amendment gives us a fantastic test-bed in looking at how personal identifiers work in a particular way and then looking at the system again.
	So, in responding to that point and to the large amount of criticism surrounding the pilot schemes, we accept the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Elder. We know that there is a great deal of support for the amendment in your Lordships' House and we recognise that it should be seen to be accepted by Parliament, as opposed to merely the Government. The system should be evaluated properly as it has the potential to tell us about the use of personal identifiers. We need to address how to tackle registration if people are concerned or confused about what they have to do, and the amendment would enable us to move forward in the right and appropriate way. As this issue is so important, we felt that that was how it should be pursued. We would be able to come back at another stage with further legislation, if appropriate, to bring in any schemes that we felt were right and proper. That is where we have got to in approaching this matter.
	I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—he is right to say that I did not discuss these issues with him properly. I hope he will accept that I discussed them with his noble friend Lord Rennard on a number of occasions before I realised that he would not be present for this stage of the Bill. However, I did not do what I should have done, and which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will accept I usually do—that is, to pursue them with him. I think that his noble friend will agree that I tried to go through these matters in detail; none the less, it is not good enough and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
	That is the basic principle behind these groups of amendments. The noble Baroness has indicated that she will not pursue the issue of the national insurance number at this point, so I shall not go into why we think there would be difficulties with that. We can refer to that issue on another occasion. I hope that I have identified for the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the approach that we have taken and our reasons for following this route. I genuinely believe that, by accepting the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Elder—if your Lordships agree to do so—we will have done something extremely important in dealing with fraud in an area where people are greatly and rightly concerned. I know that the Electoral Commission will, with our support, consider the information very carefully to ensure that in future we can come back to the very important issue of personal identifiers and deal with it properly in legislation before your Lordships' House, if that seems to be the right thing to do.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, first, she has no need to apologise to me—I am afraid that there was a failure of communication at our end. Secondly, has she considered our Amendment No. 95? It is a free-standing amendment and it seems to have merits, even if the rest of our amendments in this group are abandoned.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, would the noble Lord do me the honour of explaining again what Amendment No. 95 seeks to achieve before I attempt to dig out the information from hundreds of pages of briefing?

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, Amendment No. 95 is an amendment to Clause 37, which says that, under new rule 24 of the 1983 Act, the returning officer issues,
	"to those entitled to vote by post . . . a ballot paper . . . at an election held in England and Wales or Scotland, a postal voting statement in the prescribed form".
	Subsection (3) then states:
	"The prescribed form shall include provision for the form to be signed".
	Our Amendment No. 95 says that not only does it have to be signed but the elector's date of birth has to be stated. There would thus be a second check on the second personal identifier as well as on the first.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, and apologise to him because, having put the groups together, I have confused myself. I have had a note about the person providing a date of birth on declaration of identity. The answer is that our Amendment No. 94 provides for this, too.

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, this is not an intervention, which is not allowed. Will the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, say anything in reply to Amendment No. 24?

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I apologise that the Deputy Speaker had to rise to his feet. I am now completely confused as to where we ought to be. It would be sensible to go back to Amendment No. 24 and the group which I moved. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Elder, has proposed. I may well return to some of the other amendments in due course, but am grateful to the Minister for her responsive reaction to what, as she said, was an extremely important debate in Committee. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 24.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]

Lord Elder: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Before Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
	"ABSENT VOTING: PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS
	(1) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Representation of the People Act 2000 (application for absent vote for definite or indefinite period)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(b), after "application" insert "contains the applicant's signature and date of birth and";
	(b) in sub-paragraph (2)(c), after "application" insert "contains the applicant's signature and date of birth and";
	(c) after sub-paragraph (7) insert—
	"(8) The registration officer may dispense with the requirement under sub-paragraph (1)(b) or (2)(c) for the applicant to provide a signature if he is satisfied that the applicant is unable—
	(a) to provide a signature because of any disability the applicant has,
	(b) to provide a signature because the applicant is unable to read or write, or
	(c) to sign in a consistent and distinctive way because of any such disability or inability.
	(9) The registration officer must also keep a record in relation to those whose applications under this paragraph have been granted showing—
	(a) their dates of birth;
	(b) except in cases where the registration officer in pursuance of sub-paragraph (8) has dispensed with the requirement to provide a signature, their signatures.
	(10) The record kept under sub-paragraph (9) must be retained by the registration officer for the prescribed period."
	(2) In paragraph 4 of that Schedule (application for absent vote at particular election)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(b), after "application" insert "contains the applicant's signature and date of birth and";
	(b) in sub-paragraph (2)(c), after "application" insert "contains the applicant's signature and date of birth and";
	(c) after sub-paragraph (4) insert—
	"(5) The registration officer may dispense with the requirement under sub-paragraph (1)(b) or (2)(c) for the applicant to provide a signature if he is satisfied that the applicant is unable—
	(a) to provide a signature because of any disability the applicant has,
	(b) to provide a signature because the applicant is unable to read or write, or
	(c) to sign in a consistent and distinctive way because of any such disability or inability.
	(6) The registration officer must keep a record of those whose applications under this paragraph have been granted showing—
	(a) their dates of birth;
	(b) except in cases where the registration officer in pursuance of sub-paragraph (5) has dispensed with the requirement to provide a signature, their signatures.
	(7) The record kept under sub-paragraph (6) must be retained by the registration officer for the prescribed period."
	(3) In paragraph 7 of that Schedule (application for proxy postal vote)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (5)(c), after "application" insert "contains the applicant's signature and date of birth and";
	(b) after sub-paragraph (10) (as inserted by section 38(6)(b) of this Act) insert—
	"(11) The registration officer may dispense with the requirement under sub-paragraph (5)(c) for the applicant to provide a signature if he is satisfied that the applicant is unable—
	(a) to provide a signature because of any disability the applicant has,
	(b) to provide a signature because the applicant is unable to read or write, or
	(c) to sign in a consistent and distinctive way because of any such disability or inability.
	(12) The registration officer must also keep a record in relation to those whose applications under sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (b) have been granted showing—
	(a) their dates of birth;
	(b) except in cases where the registration officer in pursuance of sub-paragraph (11) has dispensed with the requirement to provide a signature, their signatures.
	(13) The record kept under sub-paragraph (12) must be retained by the registration officer for the prescribed period."
	(4) After paragraph 7 of that Schedule insert—

"Provision of fresh signatures

7A (1) A person who remains on the record kept under paragraph 3(4) or 7(6) may, at any time, provide the registration officer with a fresh signature.
	(2) Anything required or authorised to be done for the purposes of any enactment in relation to a signature required to be provided in pursuance of this Schedule must be done in relation to a signature provided as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) instead of in relation to a signature provided on any earlier occasion.
	7B Regulations may make provision as to—
	(a) circumstances in which a registration officer may require a person who remains on the record kept under paragraph 3(4) or 7(6) to provide a fresh signature;
	(b) the consequences of a person refusing or failing to comply with a requirement to provide a fresh signature.

Use of personal identifier information

7C The registration officer must either—
	(a) provide the returning officer for an election with a copy of the information contained in records kept by the registration officer in pursuance of paragraphs 3(9), 4(6) and 7(12) in relation to electors at the election, or
	(b) give the returning officer access to such information.
	7D Information contained in records kept by a registration officer in pursuance of paragraph 3(9), 4(6) or 7(12) may be disclosed by him (subject to any prescribed conditions) to—
	(a) any other registration officer if he thinks that to do so will assist the other registration officer in the performance of his duties;
	(b) any person exercising functions in relation to the preparation or conduct of legal proceedings under the Representation of the People Acts;
	(c) such other persons for such other purposes relating to elections as may be prescribed."
	(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—
	(a) enabling the registration officer to require an existing absent voter to provide the registration officer with a signature and date of birth;
	(b) as to the consequences of an existing absent voter refusing or failing in such circumstances as are prescribed to provide a signature and date of birth.
	(6) An existing absent voter is a person whose application under any of the following provisions of that Schedule has been granted before this section comes into force—
	paragraph 3(1) or (2);
	paragraph 4(1) or (2);
	paragraph 7(4).
	(7) The regulations—
	(a) may make different provision for different purposes;
	(b) must be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
	(8) Nothing in this section or the amendments made by it has effect in relation to anything which is done only for the purposes of a local government election in Scotland."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 27:
	Before Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
	"INDIVIDUAL REGISTRATION
	(1) There shall be individual voter registration in England, Wales and Scotland.
	(2) The Secretary of State may by order make provision to give effect to subsection (1)."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, this amendment deals with individual registration, which was briefly touched on in the previous debate. We still think that it would be helpful to have individual voter registration across the country, bypassing the traditional provisions of the pilot scheme to which the Minister has already referred. As she knows, I am delighted that her department has agreed to abandon the majority of the pilot schemes by removing half the sections in the Bill. The introduction of photographs on ballot papers does not meet with my approval, but at least it is not a pilot scheme that directly interferes with the voting process.
	This amendment is tabled with pragmatism at its heart. We on these Benches entirely advocate individual registration and if we could implement that tomorrow we would. I would like to be clear on that point. We no longer live in a society with a head of household in every house. Apart from there being many houses of multiple occupancy—for example, student halls and care homes—increasingly families are splitting up, people are living with their partners in complete equality, and nobody considers themselves in charge of the home above anybody else. As the Electoral Commission says,
	"the current system of household registration is outdated and open to . . . error".
	Individual registration should go beyond just postal voting. It is about creating a culture of civic responsibility in which "one man, one vote" is the absolute guiding principle. I know that the Electoral Commission is in full support of this, and will just remind the House what it says.
	"Without individual registration it is not possible to carry out reliable checks to prevent postal fraud, or to introduce new methods of voting which will promote participation".
	While we are thrilled that the pilot schemes have been abandoned, we would encourage the Government to go much further and demonstrate a fresh approach to the electoral system. Individual registration in Ireland has improved the whole culture of voting. A Commons committee on Northern Ireland affairs stated that it has,
	"served to increase the level of public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process".
	I hope that this amendment will be supported, and for an acceptance that household registration is out of date and fails to recognise the importance of each single voter. We do not need a drastic change in the principle of our electoral system, merely a fresh way of implementing its basic functions, which have been moved a stage forward by the amendments we have just agreed to. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as I think I indicated during my speech in the debate on the group starting with Amendment No. 24, we entirely agree with this in principle. We cannot support this amendment because—I can say as a former member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—this leaves too much to secondary legislation and we need a provision that looks much more like Clause 13. For example, there is a reference to "individual voter registration" but there is no obligation to include personal identifiers. Having said that, I entirely support the principle behind the amendment.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for tabling the amendment. While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the Delegated Powers Committee might blanche at the breadth of this—and noble Lords would be right to be concerned about the breadth of it—it is important that we have the debate.
	The Government have said that we accept the principle behind individual registration. We have accepted the practical value that the use of personal identifiers might have in combating fraud. But we have also said—and I think I indicated this in my comments on the earlier group—that it is an important part of how we operate in our democracy that we make sure that everyone who is entitled to register to vote is registered. We know—do we not?—that under-registration disfranchises individuals and sometimes skews the map of political representation.
	The Northern Ireland example is often cited on both sides of this debate. It is often seen as a tried and tested system of individual registration, and it has led to benefits, particularly in terms of the perceived security of the electoral process. But it is not true to say that the experience in Northern Ireland argues for the system in place there to be extended to the rest of the UK. In fact, due to concerns about under-registration in Northern Ireland, a Bill is currently in the other place to amend its registration system to ensure that the electoral register is made both secure and comprehensive.
	The Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill would abolish the annual canvass. Once registered, a person would remain on the register until he changed address. Increased data-sharing would help keep the register up-to-date, but if it became inaccurate, the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland would conduct a full canvass.
	We hope that these proposals will improve the quality of the electoral register, responding to the lessons learnt about individual registration in Northern Ireland. However, we also believe that the need for this legislation shows clearly that we need to do more work before we extend it to the rest of the UK.
	The Electoral Commission found that 3.5 million people in England and Wales cannot vote in elections because they are not registered; and we believe that if we do not get implementation of electoral registration right now we could make the situation worse. When individual registration was introduced in Northern Ireland, the registration levels dropped by around 10 per cent. In one Belfast ward the registration dropped from an already low 41 per cent to just 23 per cent Such a situation is unacceptable. Although this is an extreme example, and I am always wary of quoting extreme examples, it is worth making the point that we have to do this very carefully. This is about our democracy, which I believe is the most precious thing we have. We cannot allow a situation in which areas are almost "democracy deserts" to continue in that vein.
	I understand that individual registration has benefits in relation to security; in particular through the collection of personal identifiers such as a signature and date of birth. Because we can see the benefit, we believe the way forward is to adopt the amendment of my noble friend Lord Elder, as the House has, to look at the situation very carefully and to see what we can learn from it. We want to pursue the issues of under-registration and personal identification in a measured way with, I hope, as much support on all sides of your Lordships' House as we possibly can. For that reason we have taken the approach that we have.
	I fully accept and understand the concerns of noble Lords and where they would wish us to be. However, we are now in a good and positive place with this legislation and can say that we have a way forward that will give us greater security in postal voting and a greater understanding of personal identification that will enable us to come back to this matter either with other legislation or in debates in your Lordships' House.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down—which, I am sorry to say, I failed to prevent—I want to speak as, I think, the only Member present in the Chamber who is a member of the Delegated Powers Committee. There was an exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the Minister about possible deficiencies in my noble friend's amendment to which the Delegated Powers Committee would draw attention. It is perhaps worth my drawing to the attention of the Minister and the House that the Delegated Powers Committee is not normally accustomed to make comments on amendments moved by the Opposition. Therefore, one should not rely on the committee intervening after the event.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to make that point. I was not trying to suggest that the Delegated Powers Committee would comment on it. As a government, we are always minded to think about the invaluable role played by the Delegated Powers Committee in ensuring that when we take such order-making powers, we do so in a measured way. That was really the only point in which I was agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, again, I thank the Minister for her reply on the amendment. I think that I am bound to repeat the two concerns about the register. The worry about individual registration from the Minister's point of view is that it will reduce the number on the register because people will not register. My worry is that it will not take off the register people who are not entitled to be on it. There must be a middle road here where we can join hands to say that we have got it right.
	As things stand, the registration of a house in multiple occupation is left to the owner. Often, the question is: who is the owner and who does the owner think is in the property? I am sure that the noble Baroness will have experienced occasions when a house that could not conceivably house more than 10 people shows 40 people on the register. At least 20 of them should not be on the register and one wonders how they got there. There is more behind this than is being accepted by the Minister. For that reason, I shall not give up entirely and may well return to it at our final stage. However, for today's purposes, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 13 [Registration: personal identifiers]:
	[Amendments Nos. 28 to 37 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 38:
	Leave out Clause 13.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 14 [Personal identifiers]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 39:
	Leave out Clause 14.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.]
	Clause 15 [Personal identifiers: piloting]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 42:
	Page 15, line 24, at end insert—
	"( ) In section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 (c. 2) (pilot schemes for local elections in England and Wales), after subsection (1A) insert—
	"(1B) No pilot scheme shall take place by all-postal voting or involve sending ballot papers to electors who have not expressly and explicitly requested to vote by post.""

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, although pilot schemes have been abandoned as a result of the amendments that have been made, there is nothing to say that under the provisions of the 2000 Act, a pilot scheme would not include all-postal voting. This group of amendments would ensure that no all-postal voting was piloted in any scheme. The most important effect of this whole cluster of amendments is implemented by subsection (2) of Amendment No. 98, which would ensure that, regardless of pilot schemes, no all-postal voting would ever be allowed to take place.
	I was extremely interested to read in the Evening Standard of an electioneering scandal in the weeks leading up to the local elections held at the beginning of this month. I am sure that all noble Lords read of the postal voting fraud in Tower Hamlets and that the council candidate for that ward from my own party was denied her vote due to postal vote theft. So this problem is not going to go away.
	Postal voting has been tried and tested. It is clear that it is in no way ideal. Its function is to provide a solution for otherwise unworkable situations, to enable people who cannot be present at the polling station for a number of reasons to cast their vote and to ensure that geographical distance or unavoidable inconvenience do not result in their being unable to vote. But to extend the remit of personal voting is to expose the electoral system, as we have already found out, to a serious risk of fraud.
	In principle, these amendments go hand in hand with a pragmatic approach to the electoral system as laid out in my amendment on individual voter registration. With this Bill, we have an opportunity to clarify the extent of the franchise by providing registration to every individual and to close the back door on election fraud once and for all. We must close the door also on all-postal voting pilot schemes, which is the burden of my amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I was waiting in case the Liberal Democrats were going to intervene. I have already declared my interest as a voter in Tower Hamlets. I warmly support my noble friend's amendments and I shall turn in a moment specifically to Amendment No. 46.
	I share with my noble friend the experience in the run-up to the local government elections of concern that fraud was continuing to occur in one form or another, notably in postal voting. In the aftermath of the election, it emerged that some people turned up to vote and were told that they had voted already, presumably because a postal vote had been claimed in their name. My vote is not significant in the context of Tower Hamlets, yet as a single voter there, I was very much concerned that the pattern of the election was likely to be affected by a relatively massive fraud in certain buildings in the borough.
	We have said at various stages during the passage of this Bill that, although we understand the Government's concern to increase the number of people voting, it is still much more important that those who vote should have the right to vote and should not have stolen the vote of somebody else. Too much haste does cause less speed.
	I realise that Amendment No. 46 relates specifically to the Government's enthusiasm for becoming more technological. I would hope that we will not become more technological until we have managed in more conventional methods of voting to deliver a system which is universally regarded by the electorate as honest and fair.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, questioned whether I was going to say anything, I should perhaps briefly indicate our position. We certainly agree that we do not want to see all-postal voting used in pilot schemes in principle. There is some ground for saying that all-postal elections might be suitable for the lowest level—that is, for parish or town councils—where the powers are far less significant. The electorate in those cases might prefer to vote by post. I cannot see there being much likelihood of serious electoral fraud given the limited powers concerned. Subject to that, we also do not wish to see all-postal voting in pilot schemes. Moreover, until we know that methods to protect the security of voting exist, which is not the case now, we certainly would not like to see pilot schemes for other methods of voting.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the future piloting of all-postal voting. As noble Lords will know from Grand Committee, I have indicated that the Government have no intention of rolling out all-postal voting as a default position for local elections. We have no plans ever to impose all-postal voting again, as in 2004. I should also make clear that the schemes that took place then—which noble Lords felt strongly about—did not take place under the Section 10 power that the noble Baroness is seeking to amend here, but required separate legislation.
	However, we believe that it is wrong to rule out an all-postal pilot in any election anywhere in the future. There are circumstances where the use of all-postal ballots can be justified, particularly for very small parish by-elections where the evidence is that they can dramatically boost turnout. King's Lynn, which last undertook an all-postal ballot at a by-election in August 2005, in the Downham Market parish, is an example of an all-postal ballot being used to good effect with local cross-party support. Use of the system at that election significantly improved turnout from 11 per cent in the last comparable by-election to 27.6 per cent in the recent all-postal ballot. I gather that the election was won by the Conservative Party. It was a more efficient way of running the election than a traditional poll.
	It is also important to note that all-postal ballots provide places similar to polling stations where a person can complete their vote in privacy and deposit it in a ballot box. In that way, nobody is compelled to return their vote by post—although most choose to do so.
	Any election pilot is conducted at the request of the individual local authority, which must make an application to the Secretary of State. We think that local authorities are best placed to determine whether an all-postal election would be better, depending on their local circumstances, local party support and the type of election being held. Many local authorities have made requests to conduct all-postal elections in small by-elections. We believe that it is right to be able to consider those applications individually.
	I recognise that the amendments also seek to respond to concerns about postal voting fraud. However, the Bill contains a number of measures aimed at improving the security of postal voting and we have implemented a number of changes to improve that security through secondary legislation for the elections held on 5 May. I hope that that—and the fact that we have no plans to move all-postal voting beyond a system which local authorities may opt into—provides adequate reassurance. I would hesitate to support the voters of King's Lynn in this way. Where local authorities have all-party support and there is a good case to be made for improved turnout, we would want that opportunity to be available.
	Amendment No. 44 relates to different types of remote electronic voting, which the noble Baroness touched upon. Piloting electronic voting allows for new technologies to be tested and for ways to be identified in which the security and accessibility of the vote can be improved. We have much learning from previous pilots that will enable us to continue to modernise how elections are held. However, I completely and utterly accept that it is critical to have security in any electronic voting. In any e-voting pilot we will seek to ensure that the most robust security standards are applied.
	It is also important to note the trend in recent years toward lower levels of voter participation in elections, as noble Lords know. Although we recognise the complex causes of that trend, one response to it might be to make voting more accessible and straightforward. Ruling out ways in which we could develop pilots to identify different ways of voting might have the impact of discouraging people to vote. That may be especially true—she says with feeling as one who has teenagers at home—for younger people, who consider using technology to be perfectly normal and ordinary. So, while I would not want to rule that out either, I completely accept the principles behind it. We must make sure that we have absolutely dealt with the issues of security. Local authorities have also demonstrated an interest in using electronic voting and we have conducted a number of such pilots, as I have indicated.
	Amendment No. 46 gives an additional layer of parliamentary scrutiny. Noble Lords know from our discussions that Section 10 allows local authorities to propose innovations to how they run their elections. They are assessed by the department, but the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission before he determines which pilots should proceed or makes an order changing the rules. Pilots are developed and implemented locally and an additional process of parliamentary approval would further complicate the issues and impose time constraints that would deter local authorities from applying. That is an important consideration as any reduction in the number of pilots would mean that we could not test as well as we would like.
	I know that Noble Lords may be concerned about political approval of such pilots, but the Secretary of State assesses the level of local political support for any proposal before granting approval. In the event that the composition of political parties on the council does not lend itself to that approach—or should support for a proposal be split—the Secretary of State would seek detailed reasons from the objecting party setting out its grounds for objection before deciding whether the application can be approved.
	As noble Lords will be aware, the Government acknowledge the importance of Parliament having the final say on whether the substance of any pilot scheme should be adopted permanently for local elections generally. For that reason, Section 11(3) of the Representation of the People Act provides for the affirmative resolution procedure to apply before any order implementing such a change can be made.
	So, on the basis that we think it right to be able to have all-postal pilots as I described in the King's Lynn example, we should recognise both the importance of security in any additional forms of voting and the need to tackle the issues of those who might vote if they had more access to voting. We are clear that where the Secretary of State grants proposals it is done in conjunction with the local authority and the Electoral Commission, while seeking all-party consensus. Anything that was to be rolled out could be done only through approval in your Lordships' House and another place. I hope that I have given adequate reassurance for the amendment to be withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed reply but I do not agree with it. I will not press the amendment today but, as I said, I am not promising not to come back to the matter. The worry is that the all-postal pilots were so difficult that they raised more questions than answers, while moving to other electronic means of all-postal voting would be bound to be fraught with hazard.
	Meanwhile, the trouble with saying that each local authority could make its own decisions on whether it would like an all-postal ballot or some other technical ballot is that it may not always be quite as aware as Parliament may be, having seen and scrutinised the whole system, of what is seen to be going on nationally. That is not to say that local authorities are incapable of doing it, but sometimes the picture is not wholly understood.
	We remain resolutely against all-postal voting. Even if some small advantage were to be gained from it in smaller elections, we believe that it should not be supported. For today's purposes I am going to withdraw the amendment, while saying sotto voce to the Minister that my noble friend Lord Hanningfield has just confirmed that Third Reading is on 24 May. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 45:
	Leave out Clause 15.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 16 [Evaluation of personal identifier pilots]:
	[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 47:
	Leave out Clause 16.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 17 [Revision of personal identifier provisions in consequence of pilot]:

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 48:
	Leave out Clause 17.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 18 [Repeal of personal identifier provisions]:

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 49:
	Leave out Clause 18.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 19 [Offences as to false registration information]:
	[Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 52:
	Page 17, line 41, leave out subsection (4).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 53:
	After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
	"VOTING AGE
	(1) The 1983 Act shall be amended as follows—
	(a) in subsection (1)(d) of section 1 (parliamentary electors), for "18" substitute "16";
	(b) in subsection (1)(d) of section 2 (local government electors), for "18" substitute "16".
	(2) In paragraph 6(5) of Schedule 4 to the 2000 Act (absent voting in Great Britain), for "18" substitute "16"."

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 53 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 128, 130 and 150. I wish to press for an important change in our electoral arrangements, and that is to reduce the voting age to 16. What is the principle behind the choice of the age of 16 rather than 18? In my view, it is that we should make the right to vote as far as possible inclusive and not exclusive. I accept that it would be wrong to give the vote to 10 year-olds who do not yet have the capacity to reach an independent judgment, but I see no magic in the age of 18. By the age of 16, young people are developing a capacity for independent judgment. No longer do they regard their parents as the fount of all wisdom. Maybe they do not know much in the way of political history, but they can and do understand current political issues. Many who have fought general elections will have found, as I did, that young people in what used to be called the sixth forms and are now known as years 12 and 13 were the sharpest audience we were likely to meet.
	The law recognises the age of 16 as a watershed in many ways, some much more significant than the right to vote. For example, 16 year-olds can give their consent to sexual intercourse; they can leave school and take a job, on which they will pay tax on their income. I recall here the saying, "No taxation without representation"; my American background is of course very supportive of that. With the consent of their parents or a magistrates' court, 16 year-olds can get married or enter into a civil partnership. They can become company directors and join the Armed Forces.
	If young people aged 16 to 17 had the right to vote, it would make the citizenship classes held in their schools or colleges a real rather than an abstract subject. At the same time, citizenship classes would provide an impetus to voting. In a sense, the right to vote would become part of the rite of passage to full adulthood. When young people have voted once, they are more likely to do so again and the current appallingly low voting figures for the 18 to 24 year-old group might improve. That is more likely to happen if people are given a chance to vote when they are aged 16 or 17; indeed, most young people would be able to exercise that right either in a general or a local election at some point in the two years between their 16th and 18th birthdays.
	What if it does not increase the voting rate among 18 to 24 year-olds? As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said in Grand Committee, 16 to 18 year-olds have other things on their minds, as do 18 and 19 year-olds and many people older than that. Is it an argument for not giving 16 and 17 year-olds the right to vote if they wish to do so? I believe it is not. Let me ask noble Lords one final question. Think back to what are for most of us the dim and distant days when we were 16 ourselves. If we had had the right to vote, do we think we could and would have exercised it rationally and intelligently? I suspect that many of us think that we could and would have done. If so, why should our grandchildren not have the right to vote at the age of 16? I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord's amendment and we want to encourage young people to interest themselves in the political system. We also agree that we should fully appreciate the enormous contribution made by young people to our society. However, we do not believe that lowering the voting age to 16 would achieve either of those ambitions. We find ourselves unconvinced that the low turnout among people aged between 18 and 25—in 2001 it was just 39 per cent—will somehow be increased by the magic of lowering the voting threshold to 16. The argument is that voting can become a habit that a person can become accustomed or even addicted to if only they are exposed to it early enough.
	Those who speak in defence of this proposal often list a series of rights already held by 16 year-olds. I suggest that the right to vote is the exception to the rule. Under close examination, the argument proves to be rather misleading. Almost all rights held by 16 years are given on a case-by-case and conditional basis by parents, employers and other adults who remain responsible. Parents retain the responsibility over whether their 16 year-old child marries, what their religion is, and what they can do with their property. Companies make the decision on whether to allow a 16 year-old to become a director, and the Armed Forces can decide to give a 16 year-old a very restricted services role. As it stands, a young person considered to be sufficiently mature can be given certain choices, yet it is proposed here to make them bear full responsibility for the consequences of this choice. For example, a 16 year-old is not considered to have reached the age of sufficient capacity for civil proceedings. That is how it should be. Many 16 year-olds, however mature, financially astute or well educated, may not at that age be able to judge what is in their best interests. If that is the case when drawing up a contract, how much more relevant is it to voting in an election? We do not believe that 16 year-olds should bear the full responsibility of the right to vote.
	We warmly welcome the rising voice of young people through organisations such as youth councils and youth parliaments, as we have in Essex, and hope that their unique experiences will continue to bear weight with those who make decisions that affect their lives. The idea that young people should be seen and not heard is one that long ago ceased to have any relevance. It is also wonderful that large numbers of young people look forward to voting and being able to choose the government of their country. But we do not want to force that responsibility on to those who in so many other areas are judged as not yet able to make important decisions that affect their lives. We would rather allow young people the opportunity to enjoy their youth and protect them from the difficult decisions that adults must make until they ready to do so. We do not support the amendment.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have much sympathy with both of the speeches we have heard so far. I agree with almost everything the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said, except to point out that my three year-old appears to have plenty of her own mind about her. One does not have to wait for young people to reach the age of 16 before that characteristic can be found. The question here is at what age should we transfer responsibility to young people. My argument for giving the vote to 16 year-olds is that we should be consistent and confer voting rights early rather than late. That would be consistent because an awful lot of responsibilities are landed on a young person's shoulder at the age of 16. If we are going to pass over to them life-changing decisions about marriage, sex or joining the Armed Forces—decisions that have real consequences in their lives, not to speak of the right to leave home—then why should we deny them the right to vote? What is so dangerous and difficult about voting that puts it above those other decisions?
	I know that we are not going to carry the argument today, but I hope that it is a cause that we will continue to press whenever we get the opportunity. We ought to recognise the logic of our own position; if we are going to say that 18 is the age when people should vote, then we ought to be much more merciful to the young. We ought to be much more supportive of the young when it comes to other measures by which we place responsibility upon them and take responsibilities away from parents. So many things have happened in the past 10 years, while I have been in this place, that have taken 16 as the age—indeed, when it comes to criminal responsibility, down to 10, if I remember correctly—that voting is something that should come in early. It might even have some of the good consequences that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, says it would.
	I have an amendment in this group, Amendment No. 54, which proposes that we should be able to elect 16 year-olds—not that they should be able to vote, but that we should be able to elect them. This follows an argument that my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth made in Committee and that my noble friend on the Front Bench made again today, particularly in relation to companies. Companies have the right to choose a 16 year-old. Therefore, it is all right to be a company director at 16—and, golly, think of the privileges, powers and responsibilities that come with being a company director. Companies would elect a 16 year-old because that particular 16 year-old has all the qualities needed to take on those responsibilities. In the sense of any substantial company, that is true, but you can get all the privileges that go with a company and being a company director by buying a company off the shelf for £100—let alone trading on eBay. You become entitled to limited liability and make yourself a company director on your 16th birthday. If that is not a level of responsibility greater than that required to vote then I do not know what is.
	First, I do not agree with the argument. But, secondly, if that is the argument that carries the day, then why not allow 16 year-olds to be elected? We all know that there are 16 year-olds out there who are quite capable of doing the job, so let us give them a chance.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I had not intended to speak since I did not hear the whole speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—although I can anticipate what he said—but I decided that I would intervene in the light of what my noble friend Lord Lucas has just said. I will provide him with a bit of bad news and a bit of good news. The bad news is that he will not be surprised to know that I am going to argue against what he just said on votes at 16. The good news is that I support him on his particular amendment for lowering the qualifying age for candidature to public office. My reason for advancing that is simple. If you reduce the voting age to 16, you empower 16 year-olds; if you lower the qualifying age for candidature to 16, you empower electors. I am all for widening the choice of electors.
	Perhaps I may deal with the first amendment and then show how it leads into what my noble friend has argued. As we have heard, we have to make a choice on the appropriate age at which people can vote. I had one graduate student who argued recently that there should not be a voting age at all and that children of any age should be allowed to vote. I think we would regard that argument as unacceptable, not to say bizarre. However, if we take that view, then we are conceding that there has to be a cut-off point, an age point below which individuals do not yet have the qualities we require for exercising the vote.
	I take the view that, on balance, 18 is the appropriate age. We accord 18 year-olds rights and opportunities that are denied 16 year-olds. This applies in the financial world as well as the political; it applies to personal choice. We ascribe to 16 year-olds a vulnerability that we do not ascribe to 18 year-olds. I have made this point before. Sixteen year-olds formally require parental consent to marry and 16 year-olds in the military are not sent to the front line. In short, we do not treat 16 year-olds in quite the same way as we treat 18 year-olds. People may be maturing at a younger age, but we are not yet prepared to put 16 year-olds on a par with 18 year-olds. As I argued in Committee, when we accord rights to 16 year-olds, it is often in terms of rights that can be exercised usually only with the involvement of others. My noble friend has referred to the fact that, under the Company Law Reform Bill, 16 year-olds can become company directors. Some may indeed set up their own companies, but in most cases it will be other people deciding to appoint them to the board. Sixteen year-olds can apply to join the Armed Forces, but it is the forces that decide which particular individuals have the requisite qualities to be accepted.
	If we lower the qualifying age for candidature, which I will come on to, 16 year-olds may present themselves to the electors, but it will be the electors who decide whether to elect them to office. In short, we are not according rights that can be exercised directly by all 16 year-olds. It is an important distinction. When I developed it in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, described it as "ingenious"—which appeared to mean he had not thought of it before. He argued that young people were able to make decisions about their sexual activity at 16, so they should be able to vote. There is, I suggest, a real difference between the two. One is, in effect, saying that we will not criminalise a certain activity that we can do little to prevent. The other concerns the exercise of a civic right where we can determine whether it is exercised or not.
	I turn briefly to the other argument usually advanced in favour of lowering the voting age. We are told that lowering the voting age will generate greater engagement with politics by teenagers. I wish to question that. I think it confuses consequences with causes. Young people are interested in politics, but they are primarily interested in issues. They are less interested, nowadays, in mainstream party political activity. Political parties have difficulty competing with other interests and distractions. Single-issue groups can absorb young people's enthusiasms much more effectively than large, catch-all political parties. Re-engaging young people with mainstream party political activity is important, but I do not believe that that will be achieved by reducing the voting age. I fear that, in advocating reducing the voting age, we may be seeking easy solutions to a complex problem. There is no easy solution. People will vote when they have a reason to do so. Voting is more a consequence of engagement than a cause of it. By focusing on the voting age we are in danger of distracting attention from the real causes of why young people do not engage with mainstream political activity. I would remind your Lordships that Parliament lowered the voting age to 18 in 1969 and that that has not served to increase the engagement of young people with the political process. Voting among 18 year-olds has traditionally been low and it is getting lower.
	We also know that public opinion is against lowering the voting age. I readily concede that we should not be bound by public opinion. There may be compelling reasons on occasion for exercising leadership and going against what public opinion polls are telling us. However, to do that we need a clear and compelling reason. I do not believe that on this occasion such a reason exists. I do not believe that the case has been made for change. Rather, I do not accept that the case has been made for lowering the voting age. That brings me to my noble friend's amendment, which caused me to rise.
	I have no objection at all to lowering the qualifying age for candidature. I believe in protecting and as much as possible widening the freedom of choice of electors. As the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, may recall, I indicated opposition to the dual mandate for Members of the European Parliament. It is also why I have spent the past 30 years arguing for lowering the qualifying age of candidature to 18. I am delighted that the provision is in the Bill. I have no objection to lowering it further. As I have argued, it empowers the electors. Electors should have as much freedom as possible in selecting whoever they wish to represent them. If they want to elect a 16 year-old, that is entirely up to them. In practice, I suspect that the utility of the amendment will be to political parties in recruiting flag-waving candidates in local elections and enabling some young people to gain political experience, but it is the principle that is important.
	For the reasons I have given, there is no need for the voting age to be in alignment with the qualifying age for candidature. They are separate, which is why we have normally dealt with them in separate legislation. I am not persuaded of the case for Amendment No. 53, but I see no reason at all not to support Amendment No. 54. There is an issue as to who should form the electorate, but those who are electors should have as much freedom of choice as possible.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I shall follow my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth in nothing except for starting my speech with the words, "I had not intended to speak in this debate". I have been prompted to do so by him.
	I have much enjoyed listening to the debate, which has had a certain Byzantine quality of which the Reverend C L Dodgson would have approved. However, if the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas and supported by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth were to reach the statute book without the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the one thing of which one could be absolutely sure is that the next time we face legislation on this matter, one of the arguments deployed for lowering the age of voting by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and others, would be that it is ridiculous to allow a man who has been elected to cast his vote in Divisions on serious matters and not allow him a vote himself.
	My noble friend Lord Norton is stirring. I warn him that I am about to sit down. If he wishes to intervene on me he must do so in the next 30 seconds. But I have said what I wanted to say.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I draw his attention to the fact that in this country there is historical precedent for the age of candidature to be lower than the voting age. It applied to women in the period from 1918 to 1928.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said about Amendment No. 53, and with nothing that he said about Amendment No. 54. So that probably places me in reasonably good company.
	The noble Lord set out very well—as, indeed, did the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield—the reasons why we are not minded at this point to support the amendments. I say that on the basis that the Government will keep the matter under review. These are important issues and I take nothing away from what has been said about young people. It does not mean that I do anything other than support the rational arguments that have been put forward for engaging with our young people.
	I declared my interest in Committee of having a 16 year-old. He is still 16. My daughter, who is 14, was very upset that I did not mention her. She wants me to make it clear that she sits on the St Albans Youth Council and considers that a very good way of voting to get the things that she thinks are important. They are not the same things that I think are important but, quite rightly and properly, they are important to her. I completely accept the need to ensure that we engage with young people.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has a gorgeous three year-old. He has described the way in which she acts. I cannot think where she gets it from. The noble Lord will know exactly what I mean.
	We have to be clear about what messages we send from this debate and from the way in which we engage with our young people. We expect people who vote—and we are all guilty of this—to read the manifestos of the political parties in order to gain an understanding of what is being proposed, to understand what the differences are and to try to make rational and coherent judgments about what they are being asked to do—which is to choose the government of the day or the local government for their area.
	Many young people, as indeed the traditions of families demonstrate, will follow the family voting pattern, but people are increasingly making their own judgments. The points about single-issue campaigns are well made. Many young people find their way into the party political process via a single-issue campaign. This may lead them in one direction or another, and it may be an entirely different direction from that of their family. But we expect them to take care with our democracy and to behave appropriately and rationally.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned 16 year-olds when he referred to company law. There are particular 16 year-olds and particular 12 year-olds—there may even be particular three year-olds—to whom we could point and be quite confident that they would be able to exercise responsibility in that area. There are also particular 25 year-olds about whom we would not be confident. We have to make some kind of distinction. At the moment, after listening to public opinion, which is very clear on this subject—as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said, unless you have got good reasons to ignore it, you should be mindful of it—and after listening to what the Electoral Commission has said, I think we are where we should be at this point in recognising that the age of 18 is appropriate for people to exercise their democratic vote.
	I absolutely agree that we need to engage young people throughout their lives so that they understand what citizenship and democracy are all about. They need to understand the benefits and rights of voting and how important it is that they should hang on to something so precious. I have no difficulty with that. But we have to make a judgment about when we can seriously expect people to make the kind of decisions that are so important to our democracy.
	As for the age of candidacy, I do not accept the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. What we have done in making the age of candidacy the same as the age of voting is right and proper and I do not want to see it reduced. The implications for candidates is that they could be elected and they could be expected to play a hugely important part in our democracy. Again, we have to be clear about when we believe that it is right and appropriate to put such a responsibility on a young person. I am not convinced by the noble Lord's arguments.
	We should keep the situation under review. I am probably rehearsing the arguments from some years ago when the age was reduced from 21 to 18. There may be a familiarity in all of this. Of course we must keep looking very carefully. For my part, however, I think we have got it about right. I do not expect to have won over the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Lucas, on this or, on candidacy, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. It is not that I am unwilling to keep the matter under consideration; it is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, I believe we have got it right.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this has been a short but interesting debate. I remain firmly of the opinion that the age of 16 is an appropriate age. We divide into stages the process of becoming a fully qualified adult. Some rights are given at 16, some at 17—for instance, the right to drive a car if you pass the driving test—and others at the age of 18. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said that there is a difference between the rights you are given at 16 and those you are given at 18. The right to give consent to sexual intercourse, for example, is an unconditional right—apart, obviously, from the consent of your partner, who may also be a 16 year-old. Certainly the right to consent to the first occasion of sexual intercourse is a far more significant matter than exercising the right to vote. A 16 year-old cannot be forced to attend school.
	It is true that some of these rights are conditional. In particular, the right to get married or enter into a civil partnership is conditional upon the consent of the parents or a court. However, the right to get married is a far more significant right than the right to vote. So I think it is wholly appropriate to put the right to vote into the category of those rights which are given at the age of 16.
	As for the right to stand for election, I am not quite so radical. I agree with the Minister that the right to stand for election should be at the same age as the right to vote in an election. I was interested in the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, because its logical conclusion is, why stop at the age of 16? I can see that someone at least has to have the capacity to have some idea of what they are doing by becoming a candidate, but I would be entirely satisfied that my eight year-old granddaughter would have that capacity. The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, is one of those splendid examples where, by a process of impeccable logic, you arrive at an absurd conclusion.
	I remain firmly of the opinion that 16 is the right age. Although public opinion polls have shown that a majority of people in this country do not wish the voting age to be reduced, we are campaigning with a view to changing public opinion. I see no reason why on this issue public opinion should not be changed, in the same way as it was changed for the reduction from 21 to 18. We wish to make our position on this very clear. In order to do that, I wish to take the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 53) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 218.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 21 [Minimum age]:
	[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
	Clause 29 [Amount of expenses which may be incurred by third party]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 55:
	Page 31, line 10, leave out ""during the relevant period"" and insert ""after he becomes a candidate at that election""

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 55, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 56 to 62 and 133 as well.
	The Government are tabling these amendments following robust debates in both your Lordships' House and the other place. As I said in Grand Committee, the Government were not wedded to the four-month period, and I am pleased that we have worked together and achieved consensus on this issue.
	The issue we were trying to address by introducing the four-month period for candidates' election expenses was that of unregulated spending taking place in advance of the candidate's election expenses period beginning, and not being counted towards the candidate's limit. These amendments will revert to the current length of the candidate's election expenses period.
	A candidate's election expenses will count against his or her statutory expenditure limit from the point at which he or she becomes a candidate. In the case of a candidate at a general election, that is the period between the dissolution of Parliament and polling day. In the case of a local election, it is from the last date for publication of the notice of election until polling day. The amendments will not affect the useful provisions in Clauses 29 and 31 which clarify the scope of activity by unauthorised third parties under Section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and what counts as election expenses for candidates.
	We recognise that the Bill does not address the problem of unregulated amounts of money being spent by candidates in the months or weeks leading up to the point at which a general election is called. We know how much more sophisticated we have become in political campaigning and how much more effort we invest in campaigning in marginal seats. There is an issue about potentially large amounts of money being spent that cannot be recorded in the most appropriate way. We have not been able to come up with an early solution to the problem; noble Lords will know that I have been receptive to ideas from any part of your Lordships' House and beyond. However, along with working towards a consensus with the parties and Members of the other place, we have talked to Sir Hayden Phillips who has been asked by the Prime Minister to conduct a review of party funding.
	It has been confirmed that Sir Hayden's review will extend to looking at the expenses of parties and candidates during an election period. This approach makes sense, in that all facets of party funding and election spending will be examined across the piece. I am sure that with this comprehensive approach, we will be able to find a solution to the problem. I know, too, that Sir Hayden will welcome any input from noble Lords who wish to contribute to the review on this and other related matters. Therefore, we have removed the provisions from the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will accept that we have done this after listening to their views. We look forward to Sir Hayden's recommendations. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the Minister has, once again, made a very wise decision; this is a controversial area of the Bill. There was enormous concern about how anybody could know when an election would take place and consequently foresee when election expenses would start to be incurred. It is appropriate that those provisions should be removed. If Sir Hayden Phillips is to look at other matters, he might look at those as well, but I hope he does not come to a different conclusion from that of the Minister. This matter has been debated over the years; the fact is that there needs to be a rational day on which expenses should start being incurred, otherwise people have no idea how much they can spend. I thank the noble Baroness for having come back with this sensible conclusion.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we, too, find the amendments acceptable and, in the circumstances, we support them.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 56:
	Page 31, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 32 and insert—
	""(8) For the purposes of subsection (1), expenditure incurred before the date when a person becomes a candidate at the election is to be treated as having been incurred after that date if it is incurred in connection with any thing which is used or takes place after that date.""
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 31 [Meeting of election expenses for purposes of the 1983 Act]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 57:
	Page 32, line 38, leave out "subsections (2) and (3)" and insert "subsection (3)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 58 to 62:
	Page 32, line 41, leave out "during the relevant period" and insert "after the date when he becomes a candidate at the election"
	Page 32, leave out lines 42 to 44.
	Page 33, leave out lines 7 to 24.
	Page 33, line 31, leave out "other than a by-election"
	Page 33, line 35, leave out "and subsection (2) above"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 33 [Observation of proceedings and working practices]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 63:
	Page 37, line 15, leave out from "may" to end of line 17 and insert "attend"

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment I would like to speak to Amendments Nos. 64 to 82 and Amendments Nos. 127, 129, 131, 140, 141 and 143, which are consequential to the main amendments. All of these are amendments to the provisions in the Bill which introduce a system of electoral observation into UK electoral law. As noble Lords may be aware, the UK is a member of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, whose office, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, has responsibility for sending teams of international observers to elections. However, the UK itself has previously had no official method for international or domestic observers to attend election proceedings in the UK.
	UK Governments have received criticism for this from other member states of the OSCE, and from the OSCE itself. Clause 33 gives legal effect to recommendations of the Electoral Commission and other electoral observation experts, such as the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. It was intended to bring the UK into line with many newer democracies by giving independent electoral observers the right to observe proceedings and working practices, and to bring greater transparency to the electoral system, in line with international electoral practice.
	However, the UK Government have received representations that suggested Clause 33 did not in fact reflect the legislation of other states, and did not go far enough to ensure that our elections could be observed freely and objectively. We have accepted these arguments, and therefore have tabled the following amendments. Amendments Nos. 63 to 65 remove the requirement for representatives of the Electoral Commission to apply for the permission of a returning officer to observe proceedings at an election or of a counting officer to observe proceedings at a referendum.
	As part of the removal of the above requirement, observers should not have to inform electoral administrators of the places they intend to observe, or the time they will arrive, but will be subject to any existing enactments that regulate attendance at election proceedings. Amendments Nos. 66, 67, and 68 make changes similar to Amendments Nos. 56 to 58, but in respect of the Electoral Commission representatives' rights to observe the working practices of election officials; for example, the day-to-day activities of an elections office during the annual canvass period.
	Amendments Nos. 69 to 73 remove the requirement of accredited individual observers to apply for the permission of the returning officer or counting officer to attend proceedings at the issue or receipt of postal ballot papers, proceedings at the poll and proceedings at the count. They also remove the ability of an election official to revoke their permission at any time, with reasons. Any removal of accreditation would be by the Electoral Commission, giving reasons for that revocation. As part of the removal of the above requirement, observers should not have to inform electoral administrators of the places they intend to observe, or the time they will arrive.
	Amendments Nos. 74 to 78 make similar provisions to Amendments Nos. 69 to 73 for organisations that wish to send official observers. Once an organisation has been accredited, it may send delegates to election proceedings without the need to apply for the permission of the relevant electoral officer. There are two caveats to these amendments: first, the Electoral Commission may specify a maximum number of delegates who may attend any single election proceeding; and, secondly, the Electoral Commission may revoke an organisation's observer accreditation, giving reasons.
	Amendment No. 79 adds new Section 6DA, which provides local electoral officers with certain safeguards to protect the effective and proper conduct of election proceedings from either an unintended set of circumstances arising because of the presence of observers, or from a deliberate act of an observer to abuse or disrupt the electoral process. In particular, an electoral officer may limit the number of observers allowed to attend an election proceeding at any one time, or revoke an observer's entitlement to be present at an election proceeding should that observer misconduct himself; for example, by deliberately disrupting proceedings. These safeguards do not affect any other power an electoral officer may already have to maintain order at election proceedings. Amendment No. 79 is needed to provide electoral officers with the powers to protect the integrity and proper conduct of the electoral process. Without such safeguards, election proceedings could be open to abuse by an observer whose motives for attending may turn out not to be the legitimate, objective scrutiny of elections.
	Amendment No. 80 removes paragraphs (c) and (d) from Section 6E, which provided that the commission's code of practice for observers and electoral officers should contain guidance to election officials as to the granting and revoking of an observer's permission to attend election proceedings. The previous amendments I have described mean that it is no longer necessary to do that. This amendment replaces these paragraphs with new paragraphs 6E(2)(c), (d) and (da), which provide that the code of practice should include guidance to electoral officers about the exercise of their powers to maintain order at election proceedings and revoke an observer's entitlement to attend, as indicated by Amendment No. 72. It also provides that guidance should be included about the other powers electoral officers may have to regulate attendance at election proceedings.
	Amendment No. 81 inserts a reference to new Section 6DA into proposed Section 6E(7) of the Bill. It sets out who should have regard to the code when exercising their functions. Amendment No. 82 simply replaces a reference to "returning officers" within the list of persons who should have regard to the code of practice with a reference to relevant officers, as listed under Section 6DA.
	Amendments Nos. 127, 129, 131, 140, 141 and 143 make the necessary consequential changes to the rules for the conduct of local elections in England and Wales, thereby making consequential changes to the observer provisions in Schedule 1 to the Bill. I hope that that explanation gives noble Lords enough detail about what the amendments are seeking to do, and I hope that noble Lords will feel that they are appropriate and able to support them. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, under other circumstances a raft of amendments from the Government at this stage in the Bill would cause considerable concern, but the matters raised by the noble Baroness are sensible and acceptable. Therefore I agree to them.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 82:
	Page 37, leave out lines 23 to 37.
	Page 37, line 39, leave out "subsection (5)" and insert "this section"
	Page 38, line 18, leave out "apply for permission to"
	Page 38, line 19, leave out from "any" to end of line 21 and insert "of the following"
	Page 38, leave out lines 27 to 42.
	Page 39, line 13, leave out from beginning to "attend" in line 22.
	Page 39, line 23, leave out "at the place in question"
	Page 39, leave out lines 33 to 39.
	Page 39, line 40, leave out "subsection (4)" and insert "this section"
	Page 39, leave out lines 43 and 44.
	Page 40, line 9, leave out from "application" to "may" in line 24 and insert "the organisation may nominate members who"
	Page 40, line 25, leave out "at the place in question" and insert—
	"( ) The Commission, in granting an application under this section, may specify a limit on the number of observers nominated by the organisation who may attend, at the same time, specified proceedings by virtue of this section."
	Page 40, leave out lines 35 to 46.
	Page 41, line 1, leave out "subsection (4)" and insert "this section"
	Page 41, leave out lines 3 and 4.
	Page 41, line 4, at end insert—
	"6DA ATTENDANCE AND CONDUCT OF OBSERVERS
	(1) A relevant officer may limit the number of persons who may be present at any proceedings at the same time in pursuance of section 6C or 6D.
	(2) If a person who is entitled to attend any proceedings by virtue of section 6C or 6D misconducts himself while attending the proceedings, the relevant officer may cancel the person's entitlement.
	(3) Subsection (2) does not affect any power a relevant officer has by virtue of any enactment or rule of law to remove a person from any place.
	(4) A relevant officer is—
	(a) in the case of proceedings at a polling station, the presiding officer;
	(b) in the case of any other proceedings at an election, the returning officer;
	(c) in the case of any other proceedings at a referendum, the relevant counting officer (within the meaning of section 6A);
	(d) such other person as a person mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) authorises for the purposes of the proceedings mentioned in that paragraph."
	Page 41, leave out lines 18 to 25 and insert—
	"(c) give guidance to relevant officers (within the meaning of section 6DA) as to the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (1) of that section;
	(d) give guidance to such officers as to the exercise of the power mentioned in subsection (2) of that section as it relates to a person having the permission mentioned in subsection (1) of that section;
	(da) give guidance to such officers as to the exercise of any power under any enactment to control the number of persons present at any proceedings relating to an election or referendum as it relates to a person having such permission;"
	Page 41, line 37, leave out "or 6D" and insert "6D or 6DA"
	Page 41, leave out line 40 and insert—
	"(c) relevant officers (within the meaning of section 6DA);"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 35 [Replacement of counterfoils]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 83:
	Page 43, leave out line 24.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 84:
	After Clause 35, insert the following new clause—
	"PHOTOGRAPHS ON BALLOT PAPERS: PILOTING
	(1) This section applies if a local authority makes a proposal that an order be made under subsection (2) applying to particular local government elections held in its area.
	(2) The Secretary of State may by order (a pilot order) make provision for the purposes of enabling ballot papers issued at such local government elections as are specified in the order to contain photographs of the candidates.
	(3) A pilot order may include such provision modifying or disapplying any enactment as the Secretary of State thinks is necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order.
	(4) The Secretary of State must not make a pilot order unless he first consults the Electoral Commission.
	(5) A pilot order may make provision implementing the local authority's proposal—
	(a) without modification, or
	(b) with such modifications as the Secretary of State and the local authority agree between them.
	(6) If the Secretary of State makes a pilot order—
	(a) he must send a copy of it to the local authority and to the Electoral Commission, and
	(b) the local authority must publish the order in their area in such manner as they think fit.
	(7) A pilot order may be amended or revoked by a further order.
	(8) The Secretary of State may reimburse a returning officer for any expenditure necessarily incurred by him in consequence of the making of a pilot order.
	(9) A local authority is—
	(a) in England, a county council, a district council, a London borough council or the Greater London Authority;
	(b) in Wales, a county council or a county borough council.
	(10) In this section—
	(a) "local government election" must be construed in accordance with section 203(1) of the 1983 Act;
	(b) a reference to the area of a local authority must be construed in accordance with the definition of "local government area" in that subsection."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 85 and 86. These amendments seek to fulfil a commitment made by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Constitutional Affairs on 17 November during the Committee stage of the Bill. It involved allowing us to provide for piloting at a local level of photos on ballot papers and, should a subsequent evaluation prove positive, the amendments also allow for roll-out at UK parliamentary and local elections and by-elections.
	The Electoral Commission supports this piloting provision and understands the need to consult further ahead of piloting. There was a degree of concern in the other place about the use of touched-up photos and the tendency for candidates to prefer to use older photos. Indeed—this would not happen in your Lordships' House, of course—in the other place, the honourable Member for Somerton and Frome, David Heath, pointed out that some reference books to the House showed how some people seemed to,
	"have aged remarkably little since the late 1950s".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/11/05; col. 114.]
	I reassure my noble Lords that before we move to roll out such a system we would consult stakeholders and political parties to ensure that all parties are in agreement when piloting this significant change to the ballot paper. That is a firm commitment.
	The amendments take the form of three new clauses after Clause 35, on replacement of counterfoils in Part 6 ballot papers. Amendment No. 84 permits the piloting of the use of photographs of candidates on ballot papers. Amendment No. 85 requires the Electoral Commission to evaluate the operation of the order. Amendment No. 86 provides that where a pilot has taken place and been evaluated and the Secretary of State thinks that it would be desirable for similar provision to that made in the pilot order to be made on a general and permanent basis, he may make a further order revising the election rules for UK parliamentary and local elections.
	The power to make a pilot order under Amendment No. 84 can be exercised by the Secretary of State only in relation to local elections and following an application from the relevant local authority to run a pilot scheme. The Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission before making the order. The power to make a rollout order under Amendment No. 86 can be exercised only in relation to local government and UK parliamentary elections and by-elections. Again, the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission, and the power to make an order would be by the affirmative resolution process.
	The power to make an order under Amendment No. 86 includes the power for the Secretary of State to create or extend a criminal offence. That power is limited so the Secretary of State cannot create an offence punishable on conviction or indictment with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year and a summary conviction with a term exceeding 51 weeks or with a fine exceeding the statutory minimum.
	I hope noble Lords will support these amendments. If the consultation on this issue, which we will be undertaking before we do anything else, finds that the use of photographs on ballot papers might be of benefit to voters, particularly perhaps those with learning or literacy difficulties, it would be sensible to provide the ability to test it out. On that basis, I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I find this a most extraordinary provision. If the elections are anything to go by, photographs are splattered over every bit of literature, posters and all other aspects of election material. By the time you get to the polling station, I am not sure what advantage it is to have photographs on ballot papers. After all, the only two things on a ballot paper that need to be known are the name of the candidate and the party they are standing for. Other than those, there is nothing else to do with their manifesto, or with them personally.
	To have a reasonable photograph it must be reasonably sized, which means the ballot papers by definition have to be bigger, or else you have a tiny photograph that does not mean anything at all. At the last election we had logos of parliamentary parties on the ballot papers. They did not seem to mean a lot, and were frightfully tiny. I cannot see any benefit to be derived from this measure. If the Minister moves it, I am bound to say I disagree with it so I will not support it.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, since the Liberal Democrats have photographs on the information papers that are sent out about elections for our main party offices and committees, it would be somewhat illogical of me to oppose these amendments. I have to say I am doubtful how useful they are, since it is hard to imagine any freepost documents being sent out by a political party without a photograph of their candidate on, so I cannot say I regard this as a great step forward. However, it is at least worth having pilots to see whether there is any additional benefit.
	I take the point that it is desirable that photographs should be those of relatively recent age, which may have the good effect of counteracting the rather youthful photographs that may appear in the circulated freepost material. While I cannot say that we feel strongly about this, we are certainly willing to support it.
	I would just ask why, if an undertaking was given in November to provide pilots for photographs on ballot papers, it has taken until the middle of May to get the drafts of the necessary amendments into the public arena.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I hope to have a response to the noble Lord's final point, because it is a fair question.
	The noble Lord approaches this issue in exactly the right spirit. We want to talk to special interest groups and organisations representing people with disabilities and others to see whether there is merit in this proposal. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has indicated, there are downsides to this that may mean we find, when we consult, that this proposal does not go anywhere. That is why I was careful to say we would be consulting before we did anything. If we did not take the opportunity in the Bill to make the provisions to be able to try out this idea, then consulted and found that people felt there were good reasons to test it, that would be a pity. We could not table such amendments in Grand Committee, I am told, because these are very complicated provisions. I presume parliamentary counsel did not have them ready on time.
	This matter is worth consulting on and, if it has merit, testing out. The noble Baroness will be one of the people consulted on it, as will the political parties. Clearly, if there is not merit in this, it will not be pursued. If there is merit in trying it out, let us do so and see what happens. It is as simple as that.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 85 and 86:
	After Clause 35, insert the following new clause—
	"EVALUATION OF PILOTS UNDER SECTION (PHOTOGRAPHS ON BALLOT PAPERS: PILOTING)
	(1) After any elections specified in a pilot order have taken place, the Electoral Commission must prepare a report on the operation of the order.
	(2) The report must contain, in particular—
	(a) a description of the way in which the provision made by the order differed from the provisions which would otherwise have applied to the election or elections;
	(b) a copy of the order;
	(c) an assessment of the success or otherwise of the order in assisting voters to make informed decisions at the election or elections in question;
	(d) an assessment of the success or otherwise of the order in encouraging voting at the election or elections in question;
	(e) an assessment of whether the procedures provided for in the order operated satisfactorily.
	(3) An assessment under subsection (2)(c) must include a statement of whether, in the opinion of the Commission, the inclusion of photographs on the ballot paper—
	(a) assisted voters in marking their papers with a vote for a candidate (or with votes for candidates) for whom they had decided to vote on grounds other than the candidates' appearance;
	(b) resulted in voters being influenced (or more influenced) by the appearance of candidates in deciding for whom to vote.
	(4) An assessment under subsection (2)(d) must include a statement of whether, in the opinion of the Commission, the turnout of voters was higher than it would have been if the order had not applied.
	(5) An assessment under subsection (2)(e) must include a statement of—
	(a) whether the candidates and their agents found the procedures provided for in the order easy to use;
	(b) whether the returning officer found those procedures easy to administer;
	(c) whether those procedures had any effect on the incidence of malpractice (whether or not amounting to an offence) in connection with elections;
	(d) the amount of any increase attributable to those procedures in the resources applied by the authority concerned to the election or elections.
	(6) In making an assessment under subsection (2)(c), (d) or (e), the Commission must also apply such other criteria as are specified in the order in relation to that assessment.
	(7) The local authority must give the Commission such assistance as the Commission may reasonably require in connection with the preparation of the report.
	(8) The assistance may include—
	(a) making arrangements for ascertaining the views of electors about the operation of the provisions of the order;
	(b) reporting to the Commission allegations of electoral offences or other malpractice.
	(9) The Commission must, before the end of the period of three months beginning with the date of the declaration of the result of the election or elections in question, send a copy of the report—
	(a) to the Secretary of State, and
	(b) to the local authority.
	(10) The local authority must publish the report in their area in such manner as they think fit.
	(11) In this section "pilot order" and "the local authority" must be construed in accordance with section (Photographs on ballot papers: piloting)."
	After Clause 35, insert the following new clause—
	"REVISION OF ELECTORAL PROVISIONS IN THE LIGHT OF PILOT SCHEMES
	(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State thinks, in the light of a report made under section (Evaluation of pilots under section (Photographs on ballot papers: piloting)) on the operation of a pilot order under section (Photographs on ballot papers: piloting), that it would be desirable for provision similar to that made by the order to apply generally, and on a permanent basis, in relation to—
	(a) parliamentary elections;
	(b) local government elections in England and Wales;
	(c) any description of election falling within paragraph (a) or (b).
	(2) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for the purposes of enabling ballot papers issued at such elections (mentioned in subsection (1)) as are specified in the order to contain photographs of the candidates.
	(3) The Secretary of State must not make an order under subsection (2) unless he first consults the Electoral Commission.
	(4) An order under subsection (2) may—
	(a) include such provision modifying or disapplying any enactment as the Secretary of State thinks is necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order;
	(b) create or extend the application of an offence.
	(5) An order under subsection (2) must not create an offence punishable—
	(a) on conviction on indictment, with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
	(b) on summary conviction, with imprisonment for a term exceeding 51 weeks or with a fine exceeding the statutory maximum.
	(6) The power to make an order under subsection (2) is exercisable by statutory instrument, but no such order may be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(7) The reference to local government elections must be construed in accordance with section (Photographs on ballot papers: piloting).
	(8) If an order under subsection (2) is made before the date of commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, then in relation to any offence committed before that date the reference in subsection (5)(b) to 51 weeks must be taken to be a reference to six months.
	(9) In its application to Scotland and Northern Ireland, the reference in subsection (5)(b) to 51 weeks must be taken to be a reference to six months."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 87:
	After Clause 35, insert the following new clause—
	"CERTAIN VOTERS ENTITLED TO VOTE IN PERSON
	(1) Schedule 4 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 (absent voting in Great Britain) is amended as follows.
	(2) After paragraph 2(5) insert—
	"(5A) Nothing in the preceding provisions of this paragraph applies to a person to whom section 7 of the 1983 Act (mental patients who are not detained offenders) applies and who is liable, by virtue of any enactment, to be detained in the mental hospital in question, whether he is registered by virtue of that provision or not; and such a person may vote—
	(a) in person (where he is granted permission to be absent from the hospital and voting in person does not breach any condition attached to that permission), or
	(b) by post or by proxy (where he is entitled as an elector to vote by post or, as the case may be, by proxy at the election)."
	(3) In paragraph 2(6), omit paragraph (a) and the "or" following it.
	(4) This section does not apply to local government elections in Scotland (within the meaning of the 1983 Act)."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I apologise. I have misplaced the papers. This amendment was originally tabled in a group with Amendment No. 22 of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The noble Lord removed his amendments from that group in order that I could move mine because they achieved the same thing, but I would argue that mine did so in a better way. In moving Amendment No. 87 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 157.
	I am pleased to be able to bring forward these amendments. They remove the provision in electoral law which stipulates that mental health patients who are detained under civil powers must vote at elections either by post or proxy. In future such people will not be prevented by electoral law from voting in person in polling stations. I agree with noble Lords who discussed this in Committee that this restriction cannot be justified. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, knows, his Amendment No. 22 did not quite achieve what was necessary, hence my bringing forward these amendments.
	If a person is considered by a doctor well enough to be absent from the hospital, we believe he or she should not be prevented from voting in person. From a practical viewpoint it is not possible to enforce the restriction, as presiding officers at polling stations would not know whether a person is a detained mental health patient, so would not know if such a person were to present themselves at a polling station to vote. Patients can be given permission to be absent from the hospital for a short or long-term period, and there will be a significant number of people who are technically detained but in reality living in the community.
	Our amendment removes paragraph 2(6)(a) from Schedule 4 to the Representation of the People Act 2000. Additionally, it inserts a new paragraph 2(5A) in Schedule 4, which provides that detained patients may vote in person where they are granted permission to be absent from the hospital and voting in person does not breach any condition that is attached to that condition. Our amendments have been drafted to cover all detained patients who have been granted permission to be absent, not just those who have been given such permission specifically to vote. There may be people who are able to vote in person because they have been given permission to be absent for another purpose; for example, they are allowed out every day. The amendment reflects the fact that some patients with permission to be absent from hospital could conceivably be unable to vote in person because of the conditions on which they are granted the permission. We would not want electoral law to interfere with conditions imposed by clinicians for the benefit of patients' health and safety or the protection of other people. New paragraph 2(5A) continues to give detained patients the option to vote by post or proxy if they wish to do so.
	In moving these amendments there are two points I want to make clear. First, the amendments will not mean that detained patients are entitled to be given permission to be absent from hospital in order to go and vote. The granting of such permission must remain a clinical decision based on the patient's condition. Secondly, the amendments cannot and do not impose any requirement on hospitals to provide escorts for detained patients to enable them to vote in person at a polling station. As noble Lords will appreciate, hospitals may not have sufficient resources to provide such a service, and it would be completely inappropriate to expect them to do so.
	People who are registered to vote in person can apply to vote by post up until 11 days before the polling day. If on the polling day the patient is unfit to go out and vote, he or she would not instead be able to vote by post because, of course, the deadline would have passed. However, regulations passed in March this year include new provisions that allow, in certain limited circumstances, applications for a proxy vote to be cast up until 5 pm on polling day. We plan to make similar provisions for detained mental health patients who, for medical reasons, are unable to go to the polling station. Any amendments to the regulations will, of course, be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as I indicated earlier, I tabled our amendments because the government amendments did not arrive until a fairly late stage. When they did, I was satisfied with their content, and I welcome them. It seems a very sensible step to take and I am happy to support these amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
	Clause 36 [Translations etc. of certain documents]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 89:
	Page 44, line 30, leave out "Subsection (2) below applies" and insert "Subsections (2) and (2A) below apply"

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 89, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 90 to 93.
	These amendments will help to improve access to the electoral process by certain groups of electors who previously have had difficulties in obtaining documents in formats appropriate to their needs. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Goodhart, for raising this issue in Grand Committee. I hope that the amendments address the concerns that they quite rightly raised.
	Clause 36 inserts new Section 199B into the Representation of the People Act 1983, which provides for the translation of election documents, apart from nominations and ballot papers, into different languages and different formats at the electoral officer's discretion.
	Amendment No. 89 would replace a reference to subsection (2) of Clause 36 with one to new subsections (2) and (2A). Amendment No. 90 replaces subsection (2) of Clause 36 with new subsections (2) and (2A). Currently, subsection (2) provides that election officials may provide documents in other formats as they think appropriate, those formats being specified as Braille, other languages and graphical representations. The requirement of election officials to provide documents is amended to replace "may" with "must as he thinks appropriate", thus changing the requirement on election officials to provide documents in alternative formats where necessary, and emphasising the importance of extending access to the electoral process for all eligible voters. It makes clear to electoral officers that where electors require documents in specific formats due to their particular needs, electoral officers should make every effort to accommodate those requirements.
	A new paragraph is inserted that gives electoral officials a general power to produce documents in formats other than Braille, other languages and graphical representations. It is designed to accommodate those electors who may not otherwise have reasonable access to the information. For example, documents could include large print. A new subsection (2A) is inserted, which specifies that electoral officials can provide documents in an audible format, which could be by means of a tape or simply by being read to an elector by an election official.
	Amendment No. 91 simply replaces a further reference to subsection (2) with the new subsections that I have already described.
	I turn to Clause 37, which substitutes a new rule 24 of the parliamentary election rules, contained in Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act. The new rule 24 specifies the materials that should be issued by the returning officers to those entitled to vote by post. It allows him to include guidance on how to access translations or graphical representations.
	Amendment No. 92 changes subsection (2) of Clause 37 to strengthen the requirement of election officials to provide directions and guidance to polls or voters in other formats. The change from "may as he thinks appropriate" to "must as he thinks appropriate" is similar to the changes made in Clause 36.
	Amendment No. 93 extends the formats in which directions and guidance to polls and voters can be provided to include audible forms, and provides a general power to election officials to produce, as appropriate, directions and guidance in any format that may assist electors.
	Finally, I should add that my officials have sent copies of these amendments to the Disability Rights Commission for its comments. The commission has confirmed that it and its chairman, Bert Massey, are strongly supportive of these changes. I therefore hope that noble Lords will be prepared to accept the amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in Grand Committee, my noble friend Lord Rennard and I tabled a number of amendments that arose out of suggestions made by the Disability Rights Commission, which was not satisfied that the existing procedure dealt adequately with the problems of a number of people with different kinds of disabilities. I accept that our amendments put forward in Grand Committee were, in some respects, not wholly satisfactory. Therefore, we were very content that the matter should be dealt with by parliamentary counsel, who came up with improved versions, which dealt with some of the problems that our original amendments would have created. We understand that these amendments have been negotiated and discussed with the Disability Rights Commission, which is satisfied with them. Since it was always our intention to help the Disability Rights Commission in this matter, we are entirely happy to approve amendments that have also been approved by it. We therefore welcome these amendments fully and look forward to their inclusion on the face of the Bill.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 90 and 91:
	Page 44, line 35, leave out from "document" to end of line 41 and insert "must, as he thinks appropriate, give or display or otherwise make available in such form as he thinks appropriate—
	(a) the document in Braille;
	(b) the document in languages other than English;
	(c) graphical representations of the information contained in the document;
	(d) other means of making the information contained in the document accessible to persons who might not otherwise have reasonable access to the information.
	(2A) The person required or authorised to give or display the document must also, as he thinks appropriate, make available the information contained in the document in such audible form as he thinks appropriate."
	Page 44, line 42, leave out "Subsection (2) above does" and insert "Subsections (2) and (2A) above do"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 37 [Assistance for certain postal voters]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 92 to 94:
	Page 45, line 38, leave out "may" and insert "must"
	Page 45, line 43, at end insert—
	"( ) the directions or guidance in any other form (including any audible form)."
	Page 45, line 45, at end insert "and for stating the date of birth of the elector or proxy (as the case may be)"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 not moved.]

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, this may be a convenient time to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I suggest that Report stage begin again not before 7.59 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Africa: Road Traffic Accidents

Lord Harrison: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether in their follow-up to the Commission for Africa's report they will assess the human and economic cost of road traffic damage, injuries and deaths in developing countries.
	My Lords, I have always believed that building roads in developing countries is a good development tool. As a member of the ASEAN delegation of the European Parliament, I remember regaling villagers in far-flung parts of the Philippines and Indochina concerning the "roads to markets" building schemes and the benefits that would derive therefrom. More recently, I recall reading the OECD reports on the millennium goals, which show that, by providing access for young people to get to schools, village roads have helped to promote education. Moroccan girls have doubled their participation because of such road-building schemes. Indeed, the quality and delivery of ante-natal care has been improved by good paved urban and rural roads.
	However, I confess to my ignorance. There is a downside to road building: building without considering road safety can lead to deaths and injuries and, therefore, economic setbacks. We need roads, but we also need road safety. I am not alone in my ignorance. Road safety is a neglected issue that has not been mentioned by the Commission for Africa, the Gleneagles G8 summit or in the millennium development goals, despite being a major contributor to mortality and poverty. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether, with her great experience of the European Union and the European Commission, especially the transport department, she can report that the EU has thoroughly understood the issue.
	These are the facts: 3,000 people are killed every day on the world's roads, including 500 children. Some 85 per cent of those are in developing countries. Some 50 million are injured every year—15 million of them seriously, thereby presenting a burden on families and economies alike. Although there have been dramatic falls in road deaths in the developed world in the past 30 years—here, in the UK, they have halved—in the developing world, huge increases have taken place. In Botswana, the increase has been 380 per cent. In the huge, thriving economy of China, the rise has been 240 per cent. Only by the mid-century are those road deaths forecast to begin to decline.
	We need new roads to be safe, not only for humanitarian reasons but because of the economic costs. Road traffic injuries cost developing countries an estimated $65 billion to $100 billion a year—otherwise expressed as 5 per cent of GDP. Astonishingly, those figures do not compare well with the total overseas aid budget given to the developing world of $106 billion.
	Road deaths and injuries are undoubtedly worst in Africa—it has 2.5 per cent of the world's registered vehicles, but 10 per cent of road traffic fatalities: a ratio of 4:1. The computed costs to GNP vary in parts of Africa—2.3 per cent in South Africa and 5 per cent in Kenya and Malawi. We also know that road traffic injuries are a major factor in impoverishing people. Recent reports show that in Bangalore, 50 per cent of families suffering road crash bereavement later fell into poverty, partly because of funeral and medical costs that might amount to many months' wages, but also, tellingly, because of the loss of the bread winner. In Kenya, 75 per cent of road traffic injuries are sustained by the economically active young adults who are sorely needed by the country to develop its economy.
	What is the international community doing about it? Recent UN General Assembly resolutions recognise the global road safety crisis, and the UN has given responsibility to the WHO to co-ordinate action. The World Bank recently launched the global road safety facility to combat the annual 1.2 million road deaths, funded $5 million each from the World Bank and the FIA Foundation and another $1 million from the Dutch Government. The global road safety facility's ultimate aim is to enable low- and middle-income countries to develop and implement their own road safety governance systems, capacity and programmes. Road safety can be improved by better road design, proper signage, improving—or, indeed, introducing for the first time—driving tests, improving road safety education and better enforcement of the law.
	What more should be done by the international community and by the UK Government, who have an excellent record on regular development issues? The G8 agreed in 2005 to establish the Infrastructure Consortium for Africa, which will support the short-term action plan prepared by NePAD, the New Partnership for Africa's Development. That includes $1.2 billion for building roads, but the road safety component is only $20 million. Interestingly, that contrasts sharply with the World Bank's internal guidelines, which state that some 10 per cent of road programmes should have earmarked measures for road safety. If that were done, instead, that $20 million would become a realistic $120 million.
	There is also an urgent need for increased donor support for road safety knowledge transfer and improved technical capacity at both individual country level and regional level, which might be handled by the African national bank and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. The Commission for Africa has suggested building 150,000 kilometres of new roads in Africa in the coming decade, but experience in south-east Asia suggests that that could be fraught with problems unless roads are designed, built, managed and maintained with road safety prominent and integrated into them. Increased road deaths should not be a legacy for the Commission for Africa or the Prime Minister, who chaired the G8 summit.
	In a few weeks the Commission for Global Road Safety, led by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who is unable to be here tonight, will publish a new report addressing the international community's response. Its purpose is to get the international community to recognise global road safety as a serious political and financial issue that is comparable to other major health and development issues, such as malaria and defeating the spread of TB. I understand that a public awareness campaign, whose slogan will be "Make Roads Safe", will be launched with the report's publication.
	What can the UK Government do? They can ensure that road safety is a key part of any follow-up to the Commission for Africa's report. They can support the "Make Roads Safe" campaign and, perhaps, include global road safety on the agenda for a future G8 meeting. The Government can play an even more active role by encouraging the multilateral lending institutions to include global road safety components in all road projects systematically; perhaps my noble friend can consult the Chancellor on that. DfID could ensure that, in any road project, the World Bank's guideline that a minimum 10 per cent should be included for road safety is met. DfID could also provide significant support for the new global road safety facility, hosted by the World Bank. Will my noble friend also ask the Department for Transport to ensure that its expertise is mobilised to help in this important area?
	We have an opportunity to succeed, and I point to Chile, in which, in 1993, after a shocking rise in road deaths and injuries, a presidential decree instituted a national commission for road safety. Education, engineering and enforcement of the law were key issues. I am pleased to say that, as a result, road deaths and injuries have fallen considerably in that country.
	I conclude by adapting William Blake's aphorism, whereby the road of folly,
	"leads to the palace of wisdom".
	It is time that we eliminated the folly of building new roads in developing countries without proper road safety flanking measures. Only in that way will we arrive at the palace of wisdom to construct a safer and more prosperous world in which all its citizens can survive and succeed.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I would like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Harrison both on introducing this debate and on a very clear and comprehensive view of a problem that is not discussed much in this House or elsewhere. It is a problem in which I have an interest. If you have ever been a road safety Minister—that was my first portfolio—you have a tremendous commitment to the potential for hugely important, and very literally, life-saving measures. I also have an interest in development. I should declare formal interests as a trustee of the Tropical Health and Education Trust and also as a patron and until recently a board member of RoadSafe.
	My noble friend is absolutely right to say that when we think of development and the problems besetting the developing world, we tend not to put road casualties at the top of the list. However, the statistics that he gave are absolutely clear about both the extent of the problem—the 3,000 people a day dying on the roads globally—and the terrifying predictions on those figures, which are predicted to rise by more than 80 per cent in the developing world by 2020. That really gives us a challenge to make sure that development, as seen by the increase in motorised transport, does not also bring with it a tremendous toll in death and injury and particularly, as my noble friend pointed out, death and injury to those who are economically able and active. Tonight he has focused on Africa. We all know the ravaging that that generation is going through because of HIV/AIDS. We do not need a second assault from road casualties.
	We have a challenge in this enormously important area. I see a parallel challenge with, for example, health education. As developing countries and people in developing countries become richer, they can afford to smoke. We see deaths from tobacco-related cancers going up, staggeringly, in those countries. We in the developed world have been through this learning curve. We know what the issues are and we know some very effective measures that can make a difference. I would therefore echo my noble friend's call for knowledge transfer in this area.
	DfID has already made a contribution with the global Transport Knowledge Partnership which I know is valued by professionals whether they are road engineers, police, educators or government transport officials in the developing world. RoadSafe has been very involved in that activity. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to say that DfID will continue to support and to expand that particular enterprise.
	In domestic government, however, the Department for Transport has a tremendous record and knowledge base. If we think of the work done over the years by the Transport Research Laboratory, it has been a world leader on a whole range of issues from road engineering to understanding the social behaviours that contribute to road casualties as well as a range of things in between—developing, as my noble friend said, issues such as the driving test, knowing about speed limits, seat-belt wearing and all those sorts of campaigns on what is successful. Given the scale of the challenge in the developing world, it would be terribly sad if knowledge which we have at departmental level, at local authority level among road safety officers and in transport partnerships was focused only internally and domestically. Perhaps my noble friend might think about the model I mentioned earlier which has been taken by the Tropical Health and Education Trust for supporting health workers in their own country. It has done that in a desire not simply to increase the quality of provision but also to give support to people who would otherwise, as professionals, become part of the brain drain and leave their own countries. It values enormously having support from experts and professionals in this country. Through the trust we have created a form of twinning of NHS establishments and medical schools with healthcare facilities and educational establishments in the developing world. Perhaps my noble friend will think about the possible parallels between very successful local transport partnerships and local authorities in this country and parts of the developing world.
	This is a major problem and there are very high stakes; the statistics in a briefing we were given today made that very clear. I referred earlier to an increase in death rates of 80 per cent by 2020. If we reversed that, took effective action and reduced fatality rates per vehicle in poorer countries by 30 per cent by 2020, the estimate is that more than 2.5 million lives could be saved. That is an enormous prize. I hope that my noble friend will be able to speak tonight of some of the contribution that this country's Government could make to that.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, poor governance and corruption can lead to road safety being ignored or neglected. Road safety is, or should be, a core competence for governments. However, if corruption is widespread, the ability of low and middle-income countries to implement effective road safety policies will be undermined.
	Public respect for traffic rules and for enforcement authorities will be severely diminished, for example, by corruption among road traffic police. For many citizens, the traffic police are the agent of government that they are most likely to come into contact with. It is vital, both in terms of respect for government as an institution and respect for road traffic legislation, that traffic policing is seen to be fair, conducted according to transparent and well communicated rules, and is above corruption. Corruption also impacts on the effectiveness of vehicle-testing, driver-licensing and insurance regimes. In South Africa, for example, a 2005 study by verification company Kroll, suggested that 20 per cent of driving licences in the country had been fraudulently or illegally obtained.
	Weak governance structures in many developing countries are at the core of their road safety problems and need to be addressed if progress is to be made. Good governance and anti-corruption measures are now a significant area of engagement for both multilateral and bilateral donors, and road safety is clearly an area that warrants support in this regard. Kenya provides an example of how good intentions in improving road safety can be undermined by weakness in the governance system, including police enforcement. Kenya suffers more than 3,000 road deaths a year and the Government estimate that the annual cost to the economy is in excess of $50 million a year, exclusive of the actual loss of the life. Of those killed, 75 per cent are of working age.
	In 2003, President Mwai Kibaki of Kenya made non-compliance with traffic regulations and traffic police corruption priorities for his government. Some progress was made in improving the standards of matatus—the ubiquitous private minibuses that provide a large proportion of public transport—with regulations requiring speed-limiting devices and a seatbelt for every passenger. However, progress has fallen back due to police corruption—turning a blind eye to non-compliance—and to a failure to consistently enforce and sustain the changes.
	A drink-driving enforcement campaign, introduced with much fanfare in December 2005, was suspended a few months later following a successful challenge in the High Court. That was because drivers, being prosecuted under careless driving laws, argued that no law existed pertaining directly to driving under the influence of alcohol. That kind of reverse is damaging to the reputation of the authorities, the morale and the motivation of the police, and the public perception of the seriousness of road traffic rules.
	One of the first major acts of the newly elected Government of Georgia was to reform the traffic police, who had not previously been provided with cars or uniforms and relied on bribes for the bulk of their pay. The result was mass corruption, arbitrary fines and a force that was distrusted and feared by the public. After six months of attempted reform, the Government sacked the entire police force and asked people to reapply for their jobs. Only a handful of the 16,000-strong force was reappointed. Officers in the reformed force have received training, salaries, cars and uniforms, and corruption has dramatically diminished, with the police becoming much more popular with the public.
	After the annulment of the seat belt law in 1999 following a successful appeal by civil libertarians in Costa Rica, wearing rates fell to only 23 per cent and the number of road deaths rose. However, it is interesting to note that "soft" police enforcement following the reintroduction of seat belt laws in 2004—by "soft" I mean stopping, chatting to the motorist and discussing the benefits—led to a rise from 23 to 80 per cent in drivers wearing seat belts and a 20 per cent drop in road deaths. In this case, political leadership was vital in achieving the passage and implementation of the new seat belt legislation.
	Currently no international body co-ordinates or provides training, pairing or best-practice exchange between traffic police forces in high-income and middle to low-income countries. Some UK constabularies have an ad hoc twinning arrangement with some of these countries, such as India, and the New Zealand police are working with their counterparts in Vietnam on developing a model for co-operation as part of a World Bank-funded road safety programme. The International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety is developing an exchange programme, which will enable law enforcement officials from low and middle-income countries to study drink/drive enforcement regimes in high-income countries.
	One of the objectives of the Global Road Safety Facility, hosted by the World Bank, is to encourage the development of an international forum for traffic policing where information can be exchanged and twinning can be arranged for training and other important aspects of roads policing.
	This has been a fascinating debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Harrison. I hope that the examples I have given of Kenya, Georgia and Costa Rica demonstrate the vital importance of political leadership in defining and delivering road safety goals relating to governance and police enforcement. Effective governance systems are the key to delivering road safety improvements.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harrison on his choice of subject and on the way in which he brought together so many strands of the subject involving many different organisations. I confess that I was initially a little puzzled at his choice, for reasons that I shall give, but clearly it is a matter of considerable significance in the developing world. There are many human tragedies, including probably my closest African friend at university, who was an engineer. He was killed shortly after his return to Sierra Leone, in part because of the state of the roads, and there must be many who could contribute much to Africa but lose their lives as a result of the state of the roads.
	I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I range a little more widely and look particularly at the element of his Question that relates to the follow-up to the report of the Commission for Africa generally, of which this will be but a part. Clearly this subject is important but it was governance, with all the elements that other speakers have mentioned, that took up 80 per cent or so of the commission's report.
	It is difficult to assess the full extent of the damage to the economy caused by injuries due to poor infrastructure and to assess how much of that damage is due to other factors. It is also fair to point out that there is little reference in the commission's report to road safety. Indeed, the only references that I could find were on page 233 onwards, which look at the barriers to the export potential of African countries due to the state of the infrastructure. They deal with infrastructure generally, including information technology and so on. Roads are not given a particularly high priority by this very important and senior group.
	There are also major barriers to intra-African trade because in colonial times little emphasis was given to moving between the African countries. Historically, roads ran from the mines to the ports or, as in the case of Namibia, for example, were often built, like Roman roads, for military purposes. Therefore, perhaps the main issue is not transport but the lack of competitiveness of African goods in the world market, of which transport is only part of the problem. So, in the wider context, I am emboldened to roam a little more widely. One theme in the report is that its recommendations should be seen as what it calls a "coherent package" and that there should be a big push on many fronts at once.
	I begin by congratulating the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on their personal commitment to Africa. That country is often marginalised by events, whether it be the tsunami or increased support given to Iraq and Afghanistan. It is true that priority was given to Africa both in the EU presidency and at the G8 Gleneagles Summit. The problem now is maintaining momentum both in the EU in the six-month presidencies of Austria, Finland or Germany, where there has been rather less commitment to Africa, and in Russia in the G8. Clearly a new impetus was given to Africa by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor.
	I shall not go over the key parts of the report which are not relevant to this debate, but, as my noble friend Lord Simon said, it sets out a number of key themes, all of which are, in different ways, relevant to road safety. He mentioned corruption. According to Transparency International, 10 per cent of all project spending in Africa goes on bribes. There is also the fact that the UK has not yet ratified the UN anti-corruption convention, and it would help countries such as Nigeria if moneys which had been pillaged from them were returned. We signed that convention in December 2003 but have yet to ratify. Clearly in the issues of security and wars, the "big and bad men" and bureaucracy are, in their different ways, relevant to the lack of success of transport infrastructure.
	I shall ask my noble friend just a few questions on the follow-up to the report. Are there any regular reviews of progress on the total recommendations made by the commission? What about the organisation of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Has the FCO largely abandoned the field of Africa to DfID? Surely there should be more and regular political analysis and political interpretation at a time when key African posts have been axed by the FCO. Clearly there are a number of posts in francophone Africa, and important Commonwealth countries, such as Swaziland, and countries such as Madagascar, are, after a long period of travail, turning into success stories. Why should there not be a Minister for Africa? I note that my noble friend Lord Triesman covers Africa but he also has several other areas of responsibility.
	The record on aid and debt relief has been good. It may also be good on the arms trade treaty, on which the Prime Minister made some positive comments in Prime Minister's Questions last Wednesday. But trade has been a failure. So, finally, the real question that I pose my noble friend is: is it the fate of the Commission for Africa to mirror that of the Pearson Commission in 1969 and the two Brandt Commissions, which produced reports that were acclaimed at the time but are now the subject of study for development students at universities? We recognise that there are no panaceas or simple solutions—one needs patience over a longer period—but where is the motor to come for the recommendations of the Commission for Africa?

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, on securing this debate, which has an interesting title. Having done quite a stint in international development in the other place, I am often asked by ex-constituents and friends what is the most important factor in development—the key, the one thing I would do first. You go through a huge list: poverty and hunger; education; maternal and child health; HIV/AIDs; malaria; tackling clean water; empowerment of women; and corrupt governments—so rightly mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I am afraid that my list would not have included road traffic accidents. Yet when I looked into it, I could see the point of this debate. It is very important and has to be added to the list.
	Two of the most developed countries in the world, the USA and Israel, have a huge number of road traffic accidents and deaths from such accidents. In any month in the USA, more people are killed than on 9/11. This is worth remembering because the impact on the USA must be huge, but the impact on developing countries of a proportional number is extraordinary. In any year in Israel, more than 10 times more deaths will occur from road traffic accidents than in the worst year of suicide bombings during this recent intifada—a terrible statistic. With this sort of record, it might be argued that a sign of development in a country is its number of road traffic accidents. It is an appalling record for the world.
	There are 800,000 or so deaths from road traffic accidents in low and middle-income countries, and 20 million to 30 million injuries. That means people already in poor circumstances who are disabled for the rest of their lives. During my travels, I often though that there could be nothing worse than being disabled in a developing country. You have no facilities and no consideration at all, and 20 million to 30 million people are disabled by road accidents. Africa is by far the worst place.
	It is also a huge economic cost to those low and middle-income countries, some $64 billion to $100 billion a year. The total bilateral overseas aid amount to those countries is only $106 billion a year, quoting 2005. NePAD estimates that 2 per cent of those countries' GNP is lost to the affect of road traffic accidents. Costs include medical care, property damage and loss of earnings for the individual and the country. Worldwide, more than half of road traffic casualties are young people. They are the wage earners and the child carers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, it is the same group that we lose to HIV/AIDs in those countries. There have been around 35 million deaths from HIV/AIDs in those countries in the past two decades, creating 6 million orphans from AIDs—the only statistic I ever remember on developing countries. Add to that the number of children who lose a parent or their livelihood as a result of road traffic accidents.
	Accidents are caused by poor roads, badly trained drivers or drivers not trained at all. We could all bore for England on the stories we have heard about drivers in developing countries and the adventures we have had. The most marked feature for me, certainly of sub-Saharan Africa, was the lack of roads and the dangerous condition of the ones that existed. This affects the millennium development goals, which we are so concerned about. Good infrastructure is missing from the United Nations and G8 programmes on sustainable development, so it has not yet achieved great prominence.
	On the millennium development goals, the first is to "eradicate extreme poverty and hunger". No roads means you do not get your crops to market, which leads to increased poverty and hunger. It is as simple as that. The second is to "achieve universal primary education". Children cannot get to school if they have to struggle their way through the bush. There is an interesting example from a community in Morocco that recently decided to put in good roads so that the children could get to school. In a short time, they got a rise from 21 per cent to 48 per cent of girls going to school once the means was there. Among the boys, the rise was from 58 per cent to 76 per cent—a big increase in the number of children going to school just because they could get there.
	Goals four, five and six—maternal and child health, and HIV/AIDs—are hugely affected by this. If you cannot get to a clinic or cannot take your sick child to a hospital, it is going to affect all those goals, and not just in the traditional developing countries. I know that in Palestine the infrastructure is now so bad and the roads so winding and badly damaged that people are losing their lives because they cannot get to the hospitals and clinics they need to attend for treatment.
	The last millennium development goal, the "partnership for development" has to include infrastructure, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed out. Of course there is no way we can have development without infrastructure in those countries. The G8 has launched the Infrastructure Consortium for Africa, in conjunction with NePAD. The World Bank has launched the Global Road Safety Facility to increase the number of road safety initiatives. There have been donations from the World Bank and the Dutch Government into that fund, but with emphasis on the global fund and the international finance facility—also big initiatives on development—I wonder how successful it can be. There have been UN resolutions on improving road safety, calling on the World Health Organisation to co-ordinate on road safety issues.
	The UK Government have been criticised for doing little about this. In conclusion, it is hugely difficult to get a grip on the major factors in development. The Department for International Development has done its best, but we must move as fast as possible to that 0.7 per cent of GNP.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, congratulate to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, on securing this debate on an issue described by Kofi Annan as a,
	"neglected and growing public health and development issue",
	which, despite the horrifying statistics that we have heard today, remains one of the least popular in terms of global research investment. It was a topic the Government failed to address in their report on their implementation of the Africa Commission's recommendations published in March this year, but one we trust they will correct.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, highlighted, road safety is not necessarily the first thing that springs to mind when we discuss developing countries and their attempts to meet the millennium development goals. We tend to focus on points ranging from AIDS, to civil war, empowerment and democracy. However, road traffic incidents have an obvious and significant effect not only in human terms, but also in economic and productivity terms. Eighty per cent of all road traffic deaths that occur each year are in developing countries. If we break that down, the result is more than 750,000 deaths in countries that own only 40 per cent of the world's motor vehicles. Another 20 million to 50 million people suffer disabilities due to injuries incurred during traffic accidents.
	The WHO predicts that while RTIs were the tenth leading cause of premature death in 1990, which is bad enough in itself, this will rise to third position by 2020, above HIV/AIDS—above a health issue that has been described in this Chamber and elsewhere as the scourge of Africa.
	This is a most sobering thought. On the economic side, the Task Force for Child Survival and Development in the US states that 40,000 deaths can cost the equivalent of $300 billion. Overall, in developing countries, the cost of crashes has been estimated to be 1 to 3 per cent of GNP.
	On a more personal level, organisations such as RoadPeace highlighted how a road death or disability in the family is often the tipping point, especially if the person was the primary breadwinner. RoadPeace states that that was the case for more than 50 per cent of people in two rural provinces in India, where families have been tipped into extreme poverty. It is clear that cutting down on RTI can help keep people out of poverty.
	It is frustrating, as so many noble Lords have mentioned, that so much of this is easily avoidable, and more often than not, by simple, affordable changes—even for developing countries—that can have a significant effect; for example, public awareness that you need to wear seatbelts, or helmets if you are on a bicycle, and the dangers of drink/driving.
	RTIs were a major problem in Bulgaria—not a developing country, but I hope soon a successful accession country to the European Union. A friend of mine, who runs the Free and Democratic Bulgaria Foundation, set up a conference recently to look into exactly this important subject as 20,000 people had died in the past 10 years through unskilled drivers, the state of the roads and old vehicles. It secured for the conference Finnish and Swedish specialists, as they have the best record in Europe, combined with Members of Parliament, police and experts who looked into and discussed fresh ideas for enforcing highway laws, police training, penalties for drivers and so forth. The result has proved a tremendous success. It worked and the numbers dramatically decreased. Surely, road management could be incorporated into our ideas of good governance.
	What representations have Her Majesty's Government made on these issues to the governments of the developing countries to which DfID contributes? Do Her Majesty's Government support the World Road Safety Alliance's call for the establishment of international standards for traffic enforcement, traffic education and engineering?
	Many areas have been identified as contributing to the high incidence of RTIs. I will not repeat them all now, but one of interest was the lack of restrictions on the import of dilapidated or stolen cars. What standards do we insist on for vehicles that are exported from our country; what checks are made?
	We welcomed the moves made by the United Nations and the World Bank to get the ball rolling on this topic in 2004. I also commend the Government on their funding of the Infrastructure Consortium for Africa. I await, like the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, the Commission for Global Road Safety report next month with anticipation, but I hope that the Minister's department has not been holding back on this issue when there are so many clear simple changes we can support and suggest.
	The Commission for Global Road Safety website has a very good short six-minute film on its work. If noble Lords have not seen it, I highly recommend it. The message is clear: it is time for all governments, in both developed and developing countries, to say that enough is enough.
	By tackling the problems of road traffic damage, injuries and deaths, we cannot only help developing countries towards the MDGs but also make certain that the relief Her Majesty's Government provide goes to other less easily resolved problems that face those in the poverty trap.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harrison for having secured this important debate, not least because it brings together two issues about which I care very deeply; that is, transport and road safety and development. I thank all who have contributed to this lively discussion. I believe it is critical for developing countries.
	The Government believe that the provision of infrastructure is essential for development. It is an engine for economic growth in developing countries. Safe, reliable transport systems are crucial if poor people are to get to markets, health clinics, and schools. But roads of course have to be safe; and safe roads, as noble Lords have pointed out, do not cost more to design and to build.
	There can be no doubt that the human cost of road accidents is large. We have heard many statistics this evening. I add one: in Bangladesh, in the last year 4,000 deaths and over 20,000 injuries could have been prevented with more effective policies for road safety. In Kenya there were over 3,000 deaths last year; and in Nigeria over 10,000. Indeed, 1 per cent of the African population is injured in traffic-related accidents every year. It is absolutely horrific.
	I am pleased to report that DfID has already funded some research that specifically addresses the noble Lord's question. It has been undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory, or TRL, based here in the UK. In answer to my noble friend, it is working closely with the European Commission and using its transport expertise. As a result, the TRL and DfID have been able to play a major role in assessing the human and economic cost of damage, injuries and deaths in the developing world. The research shows that, when compared with the number of vehicles on the road, African countries have the highest death rates worldwide. In 2004 there was one death for every 10,000 vehicles licensed in Great Britain, but at least seven African countries show death rates in excess of 100 for every 10,000 vehicles. Due to under reporting and unreliable statistics, the actual death rate is sure to be much higher. The TRL has produced a number of overseas road notes and reports for developing country governments.
	I note the suggestion made by my noble friend Lady Hayman about twinning and the support for transport workers in their own countries sharing knowledge and expertise. That is an excellent idea. I will take it back to the department. However, I can assure noble Lords that we are already sharing expertise and experience gained not just at a national level but also from local authorities, and we are working with government and authorities in developing countries on the basis of the expertise we already have.
	Her Majesty's Government warmly welcome the invaluable work being undertaken by the Commission for Road Safety, chaired by my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has agreed to add his support should international road safety be included in a future G8 communiqué, and I know that that issue is being raised.
	Accidents have a particular impact on poverty. Indeed, DfID has published a report specifically about the impact of road crashes on the poor. It is worth pointing out that half of those killed in road accidents in Africa are pedestrians, whereas in Europe it would be less than one-fifth. Road accidents have the same effect as a debilitating illness: they drive families into poverty, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings.
	It is not all doom and gloom, however, and there is hope relating to road safety. The examples of Bulgaria and Chile have been mentioned this evening. In addition, however, a World Bank project in Estonia saw a 26 per cent reduction in fatalities in 2003 through action and simple road safety techniques. As noble Lords have said, we do not need always to strive for complex answers; simple answers can truly improve road traffic accident levels in developing countries.
	However, issues will become more serious if Africa, in particular, needs more infrastructure. At present, more infrastructure often means more accidents. My noble friend Lord Harrison asked about the follow-up to the Commission for Africa. The commission's report identified many issues contributing to Africa's entrenched poverty and makes recommendations for some ways forward. Recognising the inextricable link between investment in infrastructure and pro-poor growth, one recommendation was for an additional US$20 billion a year investment in infrastructure in Africa.
	The money is needed to upgrade rural roads and slums, but also to enable greater integration of Africa's regions and to ensure that Africa can break into world markets. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, pointed out, the millennium development goals simply cannot be achieved without improved infrastructure.
	An Infrastructure Consortium for Africa has therefore been established, to which the UK has committed US$20 million. Of course, it is vital that road infrastructure projects, supported by multilateral lending institutions and promoted through initiatives such as the Africa Infrastructure Consortium, integrate road safety issues, as my noble friend Lord Harrison suggested.
	In response to my noble friend Lord Anderson, of course it is absolutely right that the impetus for bringing about change in Africa must continue. Therefore, the Government have supported the establishment of effective monitoring processes at international and national level, to maintain momentum in ensuring that Governments are held to account and are taking forward the agenda set by the Africa commission and agreed at Gleneagles. I am pleased to say that we have ratified the Anti-corruption Convention.
	My noble friend Lord Triesman is the Minister for Africa, and he does a splendid job. Of course, he is a Minister for other things, but his commitment to Africa is clear and I know that it will continue.
	In respect of our posts in Africa and the fact that we are closing one or two posts, we must modernise our network. The fact that we have closed some posts does not mean that we have not increased our resources in other posts. For example, we have recently deployed additional diplomatic staff in Pretoria, Kinshasa, Khartoum, Kigali and Addis Ababa. We are taking forward the ARMS treaty: the Government are at the forefront of that.
	Noble Lords will agree that it is not for the UK alone to give attention to the issue of road safety in developing countries. If we are really to make a difference, our approach must be one of wider international effort. Road safety is a shared responsibility. As the World Health Organisation and the World Bank have said:
	"Reducing the risk in the world's road traffic systems requires commitment and informed decision-making by government, industry, non-governmental organisations and international agencies—and participation by people from many different disciplines".
	That is why DFID works in partnership through a range of international organisations and networks. Our aim is to ensure a joined-up and robust approach to road safety.
	The first issue, as my noble friend Lord Harrison, supported by others, suggested, is to raise awareness. Hence the key international bodies are the World Health Organisation and the World Bank. They jointly produced the World report on road traffic injury prevention, which provides us with a comprehensive overview of the magnitude, risk factors and impact of road crashes. It gives statistics, including country-specific data; it discusses economic and human costs; and it debates policy issues. That authoritative publication, together with the WHO's five-year strategy for road traffic injury protection, leads the way for multinational co-ordination.
	The second issue is to ensure that where road investments are made they are accompanied by road safety measures. Those should include design, education and enforcement. New designs can incorporate the recommendations and guidelines that have been developed by transport research organisations such as our TRL in the UK.
	DfID sees its role as supporting these international initiatives. It is funding the World Bank's guide to good practice in road safety and road safety modules in the World Bank's road maintenance programme. Likewise, it has supported a study by the Asian Development Bank of the socio-economic costs of road accidents. DfID's work to build better public institutions in developing countries is the building block to achieving road safety through better engineering, enforcement and education. We know from experience that the three Es, as they are known, are the best way to bring about real improvement in road safety.
	As my noble friend Lord Simon suggested, road safety needs good governance and effective political leadership. In partnership with other multilateral donors, and, most importantly, developing country Governments themselves, DfID has agreed to better governance in developing countries. There have been initiatives such as the Extractive Industries and Transparency Initiative to reduce corruption in oil, gas and mining industries.
	Many noble Lords have mentioned the excellent initiative of DfID's central research department to set up a Global Transport Knowledge Partnership with £2 million of funding. Around the world, a great deal is known about how to build and maintain roads—roads that will last and that will be safe. Many planners and engineers in developing countries do not have access to that knowledge. The Global Transport Knowledge Partnership has a mandate to gather and disseminate good transport knowledge. Crucially, that includes knowledge about how to promote road safety. We hope that the partnership will become a one-stop service of good practice for use by transport institutions around the developing world. I trust that DfID will continue to support it.
	My noble friend Lord Harrison and others spoke about the new global road safety facility and asked whether DfID is supporting it. We are not financially supporting the facility, because we believe that a new, separate facility, although interesting, is not absolutely necessary. We believe that, instead, efforts should focus on strengthening existing programmes, which include the global road safety partnership, managed by the Red Cross, and the World Bank's sub-Saharan Africa transport programmes.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, raised a couple of issues to which I have not replied. I assure her that I shall write to her.
	In conclusion, I must of course thank again all those who contributed to this short but very important debate. I should stress that the Government are absolutely committed to supporting and encouraging those who are building roads in Africa and other developing countries to ensure that we avoid the folly of doing so without taking the appropriate road safety measures.

Electoral Administration Bill

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 97:
	After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
	"EXTRA BALLOT BOXES FOR POSTAL VOTES
	There shall be available in each constituency until, and including, polling day, a ballot box at which postal votes may be cast in person."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the amendment says exactly what it is about. It would provide for ballot boxes to be available at every polling station which would be able to take in late postal votes. I was grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, on this point in Committee. Having considered the Minister's response in Committee, I thought that I could have another go at this issue. Although she said that the provision in law to place a ballot box for postal votes in a polling station exists, it occurred to me that that might not be in very wide practice. It also seemed that, in bringing ballot boxes for postal votes into the polling station itself, the security surrounding the other votes could apply to postal votes cast on the day.
	As I remember, the Minister's main objection to the amendment in Committee was that the Government,
	"would have to consider how to staff and manage this requirement",
	and that they,
	"would need to prescribe where they should be located, the hours they would be available to voters".—[Official Report, 23/3/06; col. GC198-99].
	Having looked at a polling station during the local elections, I do not accept this as being a reasonable response to the amendment. The location of the ballot box is set out by the amendment: it would be in the polling station. The hours could tally with the hours for regular voters, and it would not be impossible for the staff in the polling station to manage one or more—perhaps two at the most—extra boxes. I do not see an enormous challenge in bringing a facility that is said already to exist in town halls to the polling station for convenience.
	It would make a real difference to those people who cannot make it to the town hall, but who are able to get to their polling stations in time. This amendment would not forbid the collecting of postal votes at town halls as well, but it would ensure that when an elector goes to a polling station to put his vote in a box, he may do so. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I hope that I can provide greater clarity to the noble Baroness than I did at the previous stage.

Baroness Hanham: Say yes.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not need to say yes, because I think that what the noble Baroness is seeking already exists. I shall outline the present situation. We all accept that returning officers must be responsible for organising and running the election. They do not require additional powers to provide for the secure collection of ballot papers in a ballot box for postal voters who return their ballot paper by hand on or before polling day. Electors who have left it too late to return their ballot paper by post are presently able to go in person to any polling station within their constituency and hand in their completed postal vote to the staff on duty.
	So what the noble Baroness is seeking already exists. We do not therefore need to add the provision to legislation. When additional resources are needed, we have to be careful about that, but, as I have indicated, anybody can go to a polling station and hand in their postal ballot if they have not had chance to post it.
	We would not be able to require in legislation additional places for that to be done. As the noble Baroness indicated, facilities are often available in town halls. We leave that to the discretion of individual local authorities and electoral registration officers because of issues surrounding staffing and so on. However, one can already return one's postal ballot on the day. So on the basis of one's being able to do that, and leaving where else facilities might be provided to the discretion of individual returning officers, I hope that I have addressed the noble Baroness's concerns. I apologise for not having done so properly in Committee.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I was certainly aware that there was a box in our town hall at the local elections; I was not aware that staff at the polling station, who did not seem to be frantically busy, were able to take votes in. However, if that is the situation, my question has been answered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 98 and 98A not moved.]
	Clause 44 [Access to other election documents: supplementary]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 99:
	Page 53, line 43, leave out paragraph (d).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 45 [Marked postal voters list]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 100:
	Page 54, line 42, after "list," insert—
	"( ) a person registers for a postal vote before or during the election,"

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, this small amendment would put in the Bill what we have been talking about. I was pleased to hear in Committee that the Minister intended to introduce secondary legislation to allow for a person registering for a postal vote before or during the election to be included on the marked postal voters list. She stated that she intended through legislation to allow the postal and proxy voter records to be supplied to political parties. The amendment would ensure that a marked list of those who had voted by post was available to political parties during the election campaign. It seemed sensible to put that in the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister because I know that this issue has been of particular concern. I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, to try to clarify the position.
	As the noble Baroness knows, electoral registration officers deal with postal vote applications. They are well placed, as I am sure the noble Baroness agrees, to spot any irregularities in the postal voting process. Electoral registration officers are already required to keep a list of all those who are entitled to vote by post at any given election. Anyone who successfully applies for a postal vote during the campaign period will also be added to that list, which will then be made available to election candidates and their agents. The noble Baroness's amendment is therefore unnecessary, because the postal voters' list is already required to contain details of all those who are entitled to vote by post, regardless of whether their application to vote by post was made before or during the election. The list is updated, so changes to it become obvious to those involved. I hope that that addresses the noble Baroness's concern and that she is able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, it does not quite do so. The marked register shows whether people have voted; it does not show whether they are entitled to vote. The list of postal voters is one thing—the Minister has addressed it; but those who have been recorded as having voted, not how they voted, by post is another. That also should be made available.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for clarifying that. Clause 45 provides for a marked list of returned postal votes to be compiled. It is of course recognised that political parties and candidates will find the marked list of returned postal votes helpful for campaigning purposes, and it will be available to them after the election in the same way as the marked register at polling stations is currently available. The marked register of returned postal votes will include postal voters that applied for a postal vote during the election campaign. Access to the marked list of returned postal votes will be in accordance with regulations to be made under Clauses 41 and 42. The regulations will set out who may have access to the marked registers, under what conditions, the purposes for which they may be used, and the manner in which they may be supplied. I think that we will be able to cover all the noble Baroness's concerns in those regulations. It is therefore unnecessary to put the precise details of the arrangements in the Bill. It is anticipated that the regulations will provide for the marked lists of returned postal votes to be available in both printed and electronic form.
	I think that the only difference between us—I apologise to the noble Baroness for not having answered her question properly—is that we think it is better to set out those details in secondary legislation, but it will cover all the points which she raised and to which I referred in my reply.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 49 [Political party descriptions]:

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 101:
	Page 56, line 28, leave out "five" and insert "twelve"

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 103 and 104. This is not the most important amendment that we have considered today, but it is of some interest. Under Clause 49, a party may request registration for up to five descriptions. My noble friend Lord Rennard objected in Grand Committee to this as being too few, and he said that it was unnecessary to have any restriction. The Minister said that five seemed to her to be a reasonable and appropriate number, but that she was not wedded to any particular number.
	While I would like the restriction to be removed all together, I propose in this amendment a very modest increase from five to 12 in the hope that the Minister might be willing to accept it. The figure of 12 is not simply snatched out of the sky. It equals the number of nations and regions in the United Kingdom. If the figure were 12, parties could register themselves as London Liberal Democrats or the East Anglian Conservatives or Yorkshire and Humberside Labour. This small increase in number does not seem to cause confusion. It is a minor step, but it makes the question of registration more flexible without producing an unmanageable number of different titles. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as noble Lords know, the commission consulted with political parties and electoral administrators before making the recommendation. We recognise, as noble Lords generally did in Committee, that it will remove the current burden on returning officers who have to decide whether a description is acceptable and, we hope, reduce the potential for inconsistent treatment of parties, which would be a great benefit.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his suggestion. I do not agree with Amendment No. 104, to limit the power of the Secretary of State to a number above 12, but if the noble Lord is willing then I am happy to look at 12 to see whether we might do something around that. I will need to take that away and talk to people, but there is considerable interest in the possibility of that being a suitable number. If the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment on that basis, I shall come back to him.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I will certainly beg leave to withdraw the amendment on that basis.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 102:
	Page 57, line 12, at end insert—
	"(2A) Where a request is made by a party under this section in relation to a description which exceeds six words in length, it shall be permitted by the Commission if it includes a relevant place name of a—
	(a) ward,
	(b) constituency, or
	(c) local authority area.
	(2AA) A relevant place name includes a reference to a ward, constituency or local authority area in which the proposed candidate intends to stand."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, this new amendment is tabled due to concerns that we have had since Committee. We understand that, as the Bill stands, the number of descriptions on the ballot paper has been reduced. That poses a potential problem for political parties that wish to use their local area name within a name included on the ballot paper. For example, the Conservatives in Truro, Cornwall, would be unable to run as Truro Conservatives. The inclusion of a local name on the ballot paper seems sensible and parties should be allowed to register as many separate branch names there as they have registered for all other representative purposes. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I begin by saying that I am happy to think about this further. On the face of it, I completely appreciate that this amendment seems a good idea. However, I have some practical and technical difficulties with it as it stands.
	As drafted, it allows a party to register a description of more than six words if that includes the place name of a ward, constituency or local authority area. I want to deal with a couple of problems I foresee with that. First, the policy behind a central register was to create a consistent set of descriptions to aid voters when reading their ballot papers. I am not sure that allowing an almost unlimited number of names to be added to a description helps to achieve that goal. For example, as a local authority area may cover more than one constituency or ward, if different candidates use different areas—if candidate A says Princes Ward, but candidate B says Lambeth Council—it may lead to confusion among voters. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is not seeking that but the amendment has that potential.
	Secondly, the administration of such a scheme might be cumbersome and disproportionate. The register is for descriptions that are used on nomination and ballot papers only. To implement this amendment the commission will need to check nomination papers against lists of numerous permutations of descriptions—at a time when they are, in any event, quite busy—which is an administrative issue.
	Finally, there are difficulties with technical flaws in the amendment. As drafted, a party could actually only register five descriptions, albeit with relevant local names, but as long as there is a relevant name the six-word limit may be ignored. The example given by my officials—which I hope the noble Baroness will appreciate—is the "Idle Toad party actually working really, really, really hard for the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham". That is 17 words but would technically be allowed within the amendment, which I am sure is not what the noble Baroness is seeking either.
	I am happy to think again about this amendment and look at whether we could do something on the same basis that I have just stated to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. As it stands we would not be keen to accept it, because of its genuine technical and administrative issues. However, I am happy to think again about the principle behind it before Third Reading.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, if the Minister is happy to think about the principle of what is clearly a defective amendment then I am happy to leave it in her capable hands, on the understanding that we might somewhere hear how her thoughts progress. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 not moved.]

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: moved Amendment No. 105:
	After Clause 55, insert the following new clause—
	"POLICY DEVELOPMENT GRANTS: ELIGIBILITY
	(1) In section 12 of the 2000 Act leave out subsection (1)(b) and insert—
	"(b) a registered party is "represented" if there are at least two Members of—
	(i) the House of Commons, who have made and subscribed the oath required by the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866 (or the corresponding affirmation), or
	(ii) the Northern Ireland Assembly, or
	(iii) the Scottish Parliament, or
	(iv) the Welsh Assembly,
	belonging to the party who are not disqualified from sitting or voting in their respective Parliament or Assembly."
	(2) The Schedule to the Elections (Policy Development Grants Scheme) Order 2006 (S.I. 2006/602) is amended as follows.
	(3) In paragraph 3(2) insert—
	"(h) the Ulster Unionist Party".
	(4) In paragraph 5(b) after first "party" insert ", the Ulster Unionist party".
	(5) In paragraph 9(a) after first "party" insert ", the Ulster Unionist party".
	(6) In paragraph 9(b) leave out "two" and insert "three"."

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I shall move this amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who I understand has been unavoidably detained.
	Since the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 there has been a significant constitutional change in so far as assemblies established within the past 10 years have now developed into stable and important institutions of democracy. I assure your Lordships that this amendment is necessary not simply because the electoral success of my own political party at the last general election was less than enviable—I hope that is but a temporary aberration—but because it is essential that no political party contributing positively to the democratic process should be disadvantaged.
	This amendment is in two parts. The first deals with the conditions applied to parties that qualify for political development grants. Whereas the qualification was formerly to have two Members in the House of Commons who had made and subscribed to the oath required by the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1886, it is now important that we should recognise the significance of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Amendment No. 105 thus adds a comparable provision in respect of those assemblies to Section 12 of the 2000 Act.
	The amendment would also ensure that the anomaly currently allowing Sinn Fein, which does not participate in the business of the House of Commons, to benefit from parliamentary allowances and Short money while my party—the Ulster Unionist Party—which has sacrificed a great deal, including electoral success, in its determination to implement the 1998 Belfast agreement and continues to do so, no longer qualifies on the basis of its current representation in the House of Commons. The Electoral Commission has already recognised the anomaly and, in effect, supports the concept of making amends. Over the next six months, the Ulster Unionist Party will carry a huge responsibility as a major participant in what has just been initiated today: the new Northern Ireland Assembly negotiations. Potentially, the party will be the holder of three ministerial posts in any future assembly in Northern Ireland. Therein lies the reason why there should be a change to the qualification in respect of political parties.
	I will not waste the time of the House by going into the detail of the second part of the amendment. It relates to the schedule to the Elections (Policy Development Grants Scheme) Order 2006 and seeks to make provision for the Ulster Unionist Party to be added to the list of parties that are registered and for other consequential issues that require to be put in order. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we have a good deal of sympathy with the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said that Sinn Fein would be out because its members have not sworn the oath required by the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866. Although that is true, the amendment also provides that representation can be achieved by having two Members in the Northern Ireland Assembly, where of course Sinn Fein is represented and plays an active part because those Members do not have to take the oath of allegiance.
	Having said that, I think that, if the amendment had recommended that a registered party should also be represented if it had two Members of the European Parliament, we would have preferred that because it would have included the Green Party and the UK Independence Party. Although I have no enthusiasm for UKIP, there is a case for saying that a party with a large enough share of the vote to acquire two or more Members of the European Parliament should also be allowed policy development grants. Elections to the European Parliament cover the whole country and involve far more electors than either the House of Commons or the Welsh Assembly. However, although the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, tabled an amendment in Grand Committee, it appears that he has not done so on this occasion, and it is a matter for him rather than for us. In the circumstances, I need go no further than to say that, there being no other choice before us, we would be prepared to support the amendment.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, for moving the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Dubs. He is unavoidably detained on something important. I shall not go into the detail of how policy development grants work because noble Lords are fully aware of them, particularly those who have been affected in the way indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis.
	As I said in Grand Committee, although we have been working with the Electoral Commission, we have not been able to find a workable scheme that would deliver a fair and equitable sharing of resources. I shall reiterate what I said then. The policy development grant scheme will be considered in the review by Sir Hayden Phillips. That review will look at the broader and more important questions about political party funding, and its terms of reference include the requirement,
	"to examine the case for state funding and to consider the transparency of party funding".
	The policy development grant scheme will therefore be included in the overall context of Sir Hayden's review, and the terms of reference further state that it will,
	"work closely with stakeholders, including especially the political parties".
	I know that Sir Hayden has it in mind to contact in the very near future the political parties represented at Westminster, the European Parliament and the devolved authorities. I encourage noble Lords themselves to make contact with Sir Hayden and to become fully involved in the review, particularly on this important matter.
	Sir Hayden has been asked to report to the Government by the end of December 2006 with recommendations for any changes to the current arrangements which, as far as possible, have been agreed between the political parties. I hope therefore that noble Lords will see a resolution on the issue before too long. On that basis, I hope too that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, it has been pointed out to me that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is in fact here—Amendment No. 115, which I would have preferred to Amendment No. 105. However, as he does not appear to be here to speak to it, it does not perhaps make much difference.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, indeed. I am mindful not only of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, but of the representations that he has made and, indeed, of the frustration that he feels about the issue. Were he here, I would have made specific reference to the meetings that he has had, where he has forcefully put forward his case. I hope that he too will participate fully with Sir Hayden on this important question.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, it would be wrong of me not to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that my amendment is not quite as he understood it. There is the necessity to be on the list, which can be seen in the second part of the amendment. Having drawn attention to that, I have to say that I am encouraged by the Minister's response. I hope that the Government, as well as those of us who will make representation to Sir Hayden Phillips, will support the concept of the importance of ensuring that parties that regionally have major importance in assemblies are taken into consideration. Having said that, I am grateful to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 61 [Regulation of loans etc]:

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 106:
	Page 65, line 6, at end insert—
	"( ) An agreement or arrangement entered into before the date of commencement of section 61 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 which would be a regulated transaction if entered into after that date is also a regulated transaction unless it has come to an end before that date."

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 106, I also wish to speak, with the leave of the House, to Amendments Nos. 108, 110 and 113. This group of amendments is of some significance. I raised the issue in Grand Committee, but I am bringing it back again, somewhat late in the evening.
	We welcome the Government's proposals for disclosure of the names of lenders. There is, however, one point on which I find the Government's proposals not satisfactory; that is, the failure to require repayment of a loan made by someone who was not at the time of making the loan a political donor.
	I have somewhat revised the amendments tabled at recommitment, and the first change is in Amendment No. 106. I introduced it because I was concerned about the drafting of the new Section 71F of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. My first reading suggested to me that it did not have retrospective effect. In other words, a transaction already entered into was not retrospectively made into a regulated transaction. Other provisions in the following new sections of the 2000 Act in fact imply that Section 71 has retrospective effect, but it is better to have it spelt out in Section 71F itself. The amendments provide that Sections 71I and 71J, to be introduced into the 2000 Act, make any regulated transaction to which an unauthorised participant is a party void and require the loans to be repaid. Of course, I exclude—again by amendment, Amendment No. 113—any retrospective criminal liability.
	The Government have rightly provided that any loan by a permissible donor that is outstanding when Part 4A of the 2000 Act comes into force must be disclosed. In doing so, it overrides the confidentiality clause in the agreement. It follows from that that an outstanding loan made before Part 4A comes into force by a person who is not a political donor should be not only disclosed but repaid and, if not repaid, should be subject to action by the Electoral Commission under Section 71I. Similarly, any guarantee or security given by somebody who is not a permissible donor should be void.
	The deliberate use of loans to avoid disclosure is plainly contrary to the spirit of the 2000 Act. The deliberate use of loans to avoid disclosure and to enable a foreign lender to confer a benefit on a party is doubly contrary to that spirit. In those circumstances, the loan should be repayable—preferably immediately, although I would accept a delay of, say, up to 12 months—even if the lender does not wish to exercise the right to demand repayment.
	When I raised this argument on recommitment, the response from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was inadequate. He said:
	"We think the balance is best struck by requiring disclosure but not requiring what may wreak havoc with a party's finances or cause significant prejudice to the individual lender".—[Official Report, 8/5/06; col. 758.]
	I cannot see how an individual lender, frankly, could suffer "significant prejudice" by having the benefit of repayment forced on him or her.
	As to the party in question, unless the loan was expressly made non-repayable for a substantial fixed period, the party has always been faced with the possibility that the loan might be called in at an inconvenient date. My amendment would simply crystallise the existing risk that the party must have taken into account.
	Further, the exemption of loans by foreigners could—in theory, at any rate—apply to loans made between now and the commencement of Clause 61. I accept that the disclosure requirement may make that unlikely because of the adverse publicity for any party that did that, but it is not impossible and it is plainly something that would be ruled out. It is right that there should be an obligation to repay immediately or, at any rate, within a relatively short time after Clause 61 comes into force any loans made to a political party by someone who was not when they made the loan, or at any time subsequently, a permissible donor. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I recognise that he described my noble and learned friend's response as inadequate, and so I am not entirely sure that I shall be able to satisfy him for I fear that I tread a similar path to my noble and learned friend.
	We are all agreed that the purpose of the new regime is to bring openness and transparency to the finances of political parties, to put on public record where the money has come from and to deal with the issue of loans. We have been much heartened by the support that we have received from all political parties in seeking to achieve that.
	My noble and learned friend said to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the consequence of existing loans being declared illegal would be disproportionate. Although I accept that the noble Lord said that you could perhaps have a regime that stretched as far as 12 months for the repayment of such loans, nevertheless the terms and conditions could be detrimental to the lender or to the political party. We are not in the business of trying to put political parties in deep financial difficulties.
	The noble Lord rightly said that political parties were mindful of wanting the new regime to come into place—I believe that they will act accordingly from now on—but where a loan was entered into on a permissible basis before the legislation came into force and where it is transparent and open that the loan exists, we have done enough; it would be wrong to then say that, because we are introducing the new regime, from this moment onwards retrospectivity should apply to having to repay loans.
	I have no idea what the financial consequences would be for any political party in those circumstances—including my own—should there be any. We have done enough within the loans regime that we have got—I know that there are more amendments to come—to make clear and transparent what we are seeking to do and what the current position is and to make sure that the future is safeguarded. I see no reason to pursue the matter to the point that the noble Lord has suggested. On that basis, I have to resist the amendment.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will no doubt have expected, I am not happy with that response. The use of foreigners to make loans when they were not eligible to make donations is plainly an abuse of the spirit of the 2000 Act. Given that the political party which borrowed the money must have recognised that it would be and remain under a legal obligation at some point to repay the loan, it is not unreasonable to say that the repayment must take place immediately or, at any rate, within a quite limited period of time after the coming into force of the new clause.
	I might well have divided the House on this had we reached this group of amendments before the dinner break; it is the practice not to divide the House on a significant amendment at this time of the evening. I will consider what the Minister said and consult on this, but it could well be that we will bring this back at Third Reading. For this evening, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 107:
	Page 65, line 29, at end insert ", save that where that person is a bank incorporated in another member state, that company need not carry on business in the United Kingdom"

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, this is an amendment to Clause 71H(3) of the Bill. The clause deals with the definition of authorised participants. Generally speaking, it relies on the definition in Section 54(2) of the 2000 Act.
	In Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor kindly said that he would go away and look at the point that our amendment is seeking to raise. The point is simple. The definition in Section 54(2) requires that any bank involved in a transaction with a registered party would have to be doing business in the United Kingdom. I can put exactly the same question to the Minister as I put to the noble and learned Lord: does this comply with the services provisions of the Treaty of Rome? I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and I am pleased to see him in his place to deal with this amendment. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that the funding of political parties is an issue which goes to the heart of the constitutional traditions of the individual member states of the European Union. The noble Lord would agree that political parties are essential to the operation of a modern democracy, and the proper regulation of their funding is a matter of acute public and constitutional significance.
	We have considered the point and taken advice on the matter raised by the noble Lord. However, we continue to believe that this new regime for loans strikes the right balance to meet the needs of our democratic system here in the United Kingdom. It will ensure that all those making loans to our political parties—and therefore holding financial influence over them—are individuals or organisations which have a sufficient connection to this country. The position will be, as it should be, the same for donations.
	We considered the questions about what falls within the scope of the treaty. There is no "trade" in party funding and the imposition on regulations of party funding is not something which seems to us to change the matter. Our position is that regulation of loans—whether from banks not carrying on business in the United Kingdom or other persons—to political parties is something that falls outside of the treaty itself.
	It might be suggested that the imposition of these controls interferes with the freedoms guaranteed by Community law of the free movement of capital and services. Should the regulation of political parties fall outside the treaty altogether then no such question can arise. Our view is that this is something that falls outside of the treaty itself. However, even if one took a different view, it is important to remember that those freedoms under Community law are not absolute. Rather, they may be justified—as the noble Lord himself acknowledged at recommitment—where necessary in the pursuit of a public policy aim. We think that these provisions would fall into that category. They promote trust and confidence in our political system and ensure that all those making loans to our political parties and holding financial influence over them are individuals or organisations with a sufficient connection to this country. It is our position, therefore, that they fall within the scope of the public policy exception.
	I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question in the context of the service directive and European law in general. Our position is that we are outside their scope. I hope that he will feel comforted by that and able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for clarifying the Government's position. She suggested two reasons why the text of the Bill is sound: first, that a loan transaction between a registered party and a bank located not in the United Kingdom but in some other part of a member state would not constitute a transaction which fell within the provisions of the Treaty of Rome. With that judgment, I respectfully disagree. However, I understand the second arm of her argument which is that such a transaction may fall within the public policy provisions of the treaty, provisions which are an exception to all the fundamental freedoms of the treaty. I now understand that that is the basis upon which the Government are approaching this matter. So clarified, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 109:
	Page 66, line 25, at end insert—
	"( ) Where interest is rolled up under such a transaction, this does not constitute a new regulated transaction for the purposes of this Part."

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, this amendment was also intended to extract from the Government a view of the law. The issue is whether interest that is rolled up on a loan, rather than taken as interest on a regular monthly or three-monthly basis, would give rise to a fresh transaction. As I recall, the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in Committee was that if a loan transaction had taken place before the Bill became an Act, and if there was an express provision about roll-up in the agreement, then the Bill would not catch any roll-up that took place when it took effect as an Act. The noble and learned Lord seemed less sure about a situation in which a loan agreement was concluded before the Act took effect but there was no mention one way or other of interest being rolled up. That was a matter to which the noble and learned Lord was going to give consideration—which is why I have tabled the amendment again. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, unless the agreement provides that the borrower has a right to have the interest rolled up—which is fairly unlikely among agreements—any roll-up must involve a new agreement between the lender and the borrower which seems, quite plainly, to be a new transaction. I would not have thought there could be any doubt about that.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, mine is a de minimis question arising out of my noble friend's amendment. I understand the difference in significance under these provisions between loans of £200 and £5,000. However, I am interested to know whether a loan that began at less than £200, which would have had no initial significance, but which then rolled up interest, in due course taking the sum above £200 in cumulative total, would have acquired the status of a regulated transaction once it passed £200.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, raises a very important point. I was looking at the example of a loan of £4,000, which, when rolled up, reaches £5,000. My knowledge of this subject has been extensively tested today in preparing for this amendment. As I understand it, an agreement can contain a penalty clause so that if you do not pay the interest by a certain point it can be rolled up into the capital owed. That may occur in particular circumstances about which we need to be clear. I am not going to try to emulate the illuminating explanation of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, but let me briefly place on the record the position that we are in at the moment.
	Where a regulatory transaction provides at the outset for capitalisation, the operation of the capitalisation provision is not to be treated as if a new regulated transaction has been made. However unlikely that may be in the eyes of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, none the less we are clear about that point. Therefore, it does not need to be reported to the Electoral Commission. However, where the original transaction did not include provision for capitalisation but that occurs subsequently, as the noble Lord said, that would be a new transaction and would need to be reported under new Section 71N.
	A matter that has given us pause for thought and which my noble and learned friend is considering carefully is how to value such transactions at the outset. Difficulties might occur in trying to make such a valuation, containing as it does a fixed and variable element, the latter of which may be known only at a later date by the nature of the way in which it would work. The example I have is where the fixed element was perhaps £4,000, in which case the variable element could be crucial in determining whether the transaction needed to be reported under the new regime.
	We have not resolved the issue yet. My noble and learned friend gave an undertaking at recommittal,
	"to take that one away and think about it a bit more".—[Official Report, 8/5/2006; col. 763.]
	We are in the process of doing that and we will return to the matter, but I hope that noble Lords will understand the basis on which we are trying to explore the issue and to get it right. We will come back to noble Lords very quickly when we are able to resolve it in a way that I hope will be satisfactory to your Lordships' House. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness and I am pleased to have provided some intellectual stimulus to the noble and learned Lord. I am delighted to know that he will further reflect on these matters before he returns to your Lordships' House at Third Reading. I too shall further reflect on the noble Baroness's response. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 111:
	Page 67, line 39, leave out "ought reasonably to have known" and insert "was reckless as to whether or not he knew" .

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, this amendment and Amendment No. 112 deal with the part of the Bill that seeks to impose criminal liability on those who are engaged in transactions between a registered party on the one hand and an authorised participant on the other. Previously in the Bill there are other measures that make void a transaction between a registered party and an unauthorised participant.
	In Committee I suggested that a party treasurer should have a particular defence to a prosecution under the criminal liability provisions. Since the exchanges that took place in Committee, not only between myself and the Minister but also between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I have further reflected; and, as a consequence, I have come to conclude that negligence is wholly out of place as a basis for establishing the mens rea of an offence in this matter. Legislators are always careful before they include negligence as part of the mens rea; and it is only exceptionally that that approach finds its way on to the statute book.
	Most treasurers reporting on such matters will be constituency treasurers who are honorary and often unqualified technically in the world of financial transactions. They may find that they have only one day a month to devote their attentions to constituency business. In my submission it is wholly disproportionate to place such an onerous burden on them—that they should apply all the skills of a professional accountant to ensuring that a loan transaction is with an authorised participant. This is particularly so when we find that a transaction might have been made originally with an authorised participant but that person may subsequently have become unauthorised for one reason or another.
	I can think of only one recent example that in my view establishes my case beyond peradventure. Mr Jack Dromey, honorary treasurer of the Labour Party—not a local constituency treasurer, but a treasurer for the whole party—was wholly unaware that quite substantial loans were being made to his party while he was honorary treasurer. If the rules in this Bill had applied to him at that time, a court might well have found that he ought to have known about these loans being made. We ought to be exceedingly hesitant before allowing negligence as the mens rea for the kind of offences that are laid out in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I find the noble Lord's argument on this fairly persuasive. It is a serious matter to turn negligence into a criminal offence of this kind, and it is desirable that the treasurer should be prosecuted only if he actually knew something, or simply did not bother to investigate the facts to an extent that he knew perfectly well that he should. I support both the amendments in this group.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful. I spent quite a bit of time thinking about this amendment. I had the benefit of a conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and his honourable friend Mr Heald, about this. I know that very much on the minds of the noble Lord and his colleague was the fact that, when one is asking people to perform a voluntary function, they tend to be people who take on voluntary functions in local communities, and one wishes to recognise that they do so in a voluntary capacity. Being part of a political party and dealing with its money is a critical part of our democracy and of our vibrant communities. The noble Lord and I also talked about the need to ensure that we do not deter people unnecessarily from coming forward. I balanced that by saying that we must be absolutely clear in what we say to people about what is and is not acceptable behaviour.
	This is the moment in all my arguments when I recognise that the principals on the Front Benches I am talking to—maybe with the exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I do not know—are eminent lawyers, and I am not. So the difference between reasonableness and recklessness in legal terms is lost on me. Let me put that on the record immediately.
	I will think about this again, because I understand the principle behind the proposal, of not wishing to deter and wanting to be reasonable about the way we treat people. What I am not clear about is whether we have already achieved that in new Section 71L. The advice I have is that it is quite reasonable to talk about "reasonableness". For example, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, talked about someone who might have made a transaction with a bank that is later taken over and becomes unauthorised, but they did not know. I would have thought any court would have said, "Okay, you didn't know". If they had been sent information from the bank that said it had been taken over and was now unauthorised, we would expect them to know, because the regime that we have set up is exactly the same as that for donations. They have to understand it for donations, so I do not see why they cannot do so for loans.
	I will take this away, as I have indicated, but it is on the basis that we may have got the balance about right. The regime replicates that for donations, and we understand and appreciate the valuable role people play in political parties, both at national and local level. I should point out that Mr Dromey was the honorary treasurer, not the registered treasurer. That apparently marks a difference in status.
	It is important that we make sure that the test is a proper one, and that accidentally it is not a way that people can escape from their responsibilities. I therefore want to look again at that matter, with a view to trying to achieve that balance. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to think about it one more time. However, I do not commit myself to returning with anything different, rather that I may try to persuade both noble Lords that we have achieved the right balance.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Despite what she has said, the two reasons that we have advanced for the amendment remain extremely powerful. As a matter of principle, we avoid, if we possibly can, using negligence as a basis for a criminal offence That is reinforced by what the Minister said about the voluntary nature of the work that party treasurers do.
	In my submission, if the provisions go through as they stand, it would be very difficult to find party treasurers. The Minister said that she would go away and think again about the matter. I am, of course, grateful to her for that. However, I should put her on notice that I intend to re-table this amendment at Third Reading; and, if I have no positive response from her, it is highly likely that I shall seek the opinion of the House. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 not moved.]

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 114:
	Page 70, line 3, at end insert "or a donation made by the participant to the registered party in that year"

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this could not be described as a probing amendment; rather, it asks for a progress report. In the debate on recommitment, I pointed out that there was no provision in the Bill to accumulate donations and loans so that it would be possible to make a donation of £5,000 and a loan of £5,000 in the same year without either having to be reported. That seemed to me to be wrong, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accepted that it required attention and that amendments should be drafted to deal with it. The very brief amendment that I have tabled is intended to have that effect. However, I have no doubt that parliamentary counsel would want something rather more elaborate. Therefore, I am asking what the state of play is in relation to government amendments to make it possible to accumulate donations and loans when deciding whether the disclosure levels have been reached. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I understand exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, sought to achieve in his amendment on recommitment. It is quite clear that if we were in a position in which someone could produce a donation of £5,000 and a loan of £5,000, we would have created a gap that I would not wish to see created, for all the reasons that your Lordships will recognise. All that I can say is, "If only the noble Lord's amendment did it . . .". The noble Lord required a progress report. My noble and learned friend and I discussed that matter today, and officials are working on it. However, it will require detailed amendments to the new Part 4A of Schedule 6A to the 2000 Act as well as to the existing Part 4 to Schedule 6, which deals with donations. Although it seems a very simple matter on the face of it, it will be very complicated to design an amendment, but we are with the noble Lord in seeking to achieve that as quickly as possible.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that report, but it raises one concern—the timing. We are now supposed to be having Third Reading on Tuesday next week. There is a great deal of new work to get through, perhaps the most important of which may relate to service voters, but includes a number of other aspects—this amendment raises just one—which require detailed attention. Once we are past Third Reading in your Lordships' House there is no way that this matter can be dealt with when the Bill returns to the other place. In the circumstances, it is highly desirable that Third Reading should be deferred until after the late May/early June Recess. Is that likely to happen?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, rightly indicated that she had information about Third Reading that I did not have. That is right and proper, too, because it is in the hands of the other parties to determine that. I am merely a Minister—I turn up when I am told to. But what I take from all our debates today is a desire that, if we are able to get this Bill out of your Lordships' House in good shape, I should invest time to ensure that we can achieve that. I always live in hope that that means I will not lose anything at later stages and I always do my best to try to accommodate when I can.
	But regarding the loans amendments, which I said I would return to and which are important to all political parties here and in another place, and the service voters, I am under an obligation to do what I said I would do for your Lordships' House. If that means that I need to discuss the possibility of moving Third Reading, I will do so—but in conjunction, of course, with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for it will not be in my gift. I hope that if we feel we need a slight delay, we can make that proposal together, so that I can do what I promised to do.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that, because this is an important Bill and it is desirable to get it right, even at the cost of a couple of weeks' delay in getting it through your Lordships' House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
	Clause 67 [Encouraging electoral participation]:

Lord Norton of Louth: moved Amendment No. 116:
	Page 87, line 32, leave out "may" and insert "must"

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, this amendment does not involve drafting complexity. Clause 67 states:
	"A local electoral officer may take such steps as he thinks appropriate to encourage the participation by electors in the electoral process in the area for which he acts".
	My amendment leaves out "may" and inserts "must".
	It may seem a small amendment but it is very important in the context of what the Bill seeks to achieve. The Bill has the laudable goal of ensuring that everyone who is entitled to vote does so. Electoral registration officers are given powers to try to ensure that the register is as complete and accurate as possible. The next step is to ensure that those who are on the register exercise their right to vote.
	Given the purpose of the Bill, there is a compelling case for requiring electoral officers to take steps to encourage participation by electors in the electoral process. When we discussed this in Committee, the Minister contended that discretion was justified, as some local authorities have high rates of registration, and so activity that may be appropriate in one area may not be required in another. However, there is still discretion under my amendment, because an electoral officer will be required to take steps "as he thinks appropriate" to encourage participation. So, in an area with high registration and high turnout, an electoral officer can determine that it is not appropriate to mount a major campaign. The difference between subsection (1) as presently drafted and my amendment is that the current wording is essentially passive and is likely to engage those officers who are already alert to the issue and keen to take steps to encourage participation, whereas my amendment will require every electoral officer to give thought to what, if anything, can be done to increase participation.
	My amendment places the onus on electoral officers to devise a way to encourage participation in the electoral process without imposing a rigid template. It is up to each officer to determine what is appropriate. My amendment ensures that at least they give thought to what is appropriate. Given what this Bill seeks to achieve, it is an important and necessary amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I see the Minister sitting firmly on the edge of her seat. So I hope that we have good news. I rise only to support my noble friend. Just out of a tweak of amusement, I look back at Clause 67 to see that an electoral officer "may" take steps, as the noble Lord has said, and that he "may" imburse a local electoral officer if he wishes, but he "must" have regard to any guidance of the Electoral Commission. So, the "mays" and the "musts" are quite splattered around on that one. I hope that we get another "must" in.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, can I say "well spotted" to the noble Baroness? To the noble Lord, I am very grateful, and I am delighted to accept the amendment.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am very grateful for that succinct response. I shall not digress to discuss the meaning of "have regard to"—I do not want to go down that route. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for her response.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 117:
	After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
	"PRE-CONSOLIDATION AMENDMENTS
	(1) The Secretary of State may by order make such amendments of the enactments relating to the representation of the people as in his opinion facilitate or are otherwise desirable in connection with the consolidation of some or all of those enactments.
	(2) The enactments relating to the representation of the people are—
	(a) the Representation of the People Act 1983;
	(b) the Representation of the People Act 1985;
	(c) the Representation of the People Act 1989;
	(d) the Representation of the People Act 1993;
	(e) the Representation of the People Act 2000;
	(f) the Electoral Administration Act 2006;
	(g) the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985;
	(h) the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002;
	(i) the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006;
	(j) an enactment referring to any enactment falling within paragraphs (a) to (i).
	(3) An order under this section must not come into force unless an Act consolidating the enactments amended by the order (with or without other enactments relating to the representation of the people) has been passed.
	(4) An order under this section must not come into force until immediately before that Act comes into force.
	(5) Subsection (6) applies if the provisions of that Act come into force at different times.
	(6) So much of an order under this section as amends an enactment repealed and re-enacted by a provision of that Act comes into force immediately before that provision.
	(7) An order under this section must not be made unless the Secretary of State first consults the Electoral Commission.
	(8) An order under this section must be made by statutory instrument, but no such order may be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	(9) An order under this section must not make any provision which would, if it were included in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, be within the legislative competence of that Parliament."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, this amendment helps prepare the ground for the possibility of a consolidation of the key primary legislation from 1983 onwards, relating to UK parliamentary elections and local elections in England and Wales. The Representation of the People Act 1983 was the last serious attempt to consolidate the provisions of electoral law in the UK. However, in the intervening years, there have been a number of key enactments, including significant changes and additions to the body of electoral law. The growing number of statutes with which those who involve themselves in elections have to familiarise themselves have made it increasingly difficult to master. Of course this, in turn, makes it more likely that errors will be made in any given election, and there have accordingly been increasing calls from key stakeholder groups—not least political parties themselves—for a consolidation of electoral law. We have considerable sympathy with these calls.
	The act of consolidation itself will require a substantial Bill to be brought forward when parliamentary time allows, following significant work by the Law Commission. While I cannot, at this time, commit to bringing forward such a substantive consolidation Bill within a specific timeframe, I hope noble Lords will accept the amendment as a step in the right direction that will help pave the way for substantive consolidation.
	The amendment allows the Secretary of State to make an order, amending provisions of any of the Acts listed in subsection (2). The purpose of such legislation would be to facilitate the substantive consolidation of the provisions in the Acts to which the amendments proposed in the order related.
	Crucially, subsections (3) to (6) tie the timing of the use of the order-making power very closely to the enactment of substantive consolidation legislation. Thus, such an order—or relevant parts of it—could in practice only come into force in the window of time between substantive consolidation legislation gaining Royal Assent, and such an Act—or relevant parts of it—coming into force.
	Further safeguards against any inappropriate use of the order-making power are set out in subsections (7) and (8), which respectively require the Electoral Commission to be consulted on a proposed order, and a draft of any order to be actively approved by resolution of each House of Parliament before it can be made.
	Subsection (8) recognises the terms of the devolution settlement, in that any order under the proposed new clause could not deal with aspects of electoral law that would now be dealt with by an Act of the Scottish Parliament.
	Pre-consolidation amendment order-making powers as proposed here have recent precedent, in the form of Section 36 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002, and Section 407 of the Communications Act 2003. They are considered to have great value by enabling errors and inconsistencies in earlier enactments to be removed from the statute book, prior to substantive consolidation, while remaining within the consolidation requirement, in that any amendments do not change the substantive meaning of the law. I encourage noble Lords to accept this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I have a query about the amendment. I thought that I would intervene on this one in the hope that I might be on a roll. When I saw that the amendment had been tabled, I realised that the intention was to bring forward a consolidation measure. I can understand the reason for that but I wanted to raise a query relating to the tabling of the amendment and getting to the consolidation Act.
	The intention is to consolidate electoral law, including the 1983 and 2000 Acts, and that raises a concern of mine, of which the Minister is aware, relating to the edited version of the electoral register. As the law stands, people have to opt out of their name being included in the register but, as the noble Baroness is aware, I believe that we must move towards the opt-in provision. The present arrangement is a default one and so we cannot be certain that all those whose names are in the edited register have given informed consent to be in the register. As it is a default mechanism and there is no personal registration, we cannot know whether the head of the household has consulted everyone to ensure that they wish to be in the register and therefore we cannot know whether they have exercised the option to opt out. I think that the Minister's other hat, under which she is in charge of personal data, is important because we cannot be certain that people have assented to their personal data being made available commercially to third parties.
	I am keen to see a change in the law. I recognise the complexity of doing that and understand that such a change cannot be included in the Bill before us, but I should like to see a subsequent change. Of course, that will require legislation, and my question is whether we are likely to see any activity between the passage of this Bill and any future consolidation measure—in other words, whether we can get a change agreed and embodied in legislation before we move to consolidation, which, by its nature, must consolidate the law as there is no provision for change. If the noble Baroness is able to give me an assurance on that, I shall be extremely grateful.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I very much welcome the idea of consolidation of the legislation on elections, which will include the Representation of the People Act 2000 but not the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, as set out in the amendment. The Government's hyperactivity over the past few years in introducing new legislation has meant that we have had very few consolidation Bills. That is a great pity as the regular consolidation of legislation is of great assistance to everyone who needs to know what the law is at any given time. I hope that this will come about as soon as possible.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his welcome for the amendment, and I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, to whom I pay great tribute for having included discussion on his concern. I am very pleased to be able to put that on the record.
	The noble Lord will know that we have already had the opportunity to discuss this matter. At present, people have to opt out of the register but, as the noble Lord said, one is never really sure whether people positively use that opportunity or whether some people simply do not read the form. I know that the noble Lord feels passionately about the importance of the register and of it being used for its prime purpose.
	The noble Lord knows, too, that many organisations—businesses and charities—rely very heavily on accessing a huge amount of data about people in order to write to them. I would be concerned about making any change without having the opportunity to consult such organisations as I genuinely do not have the faintest idea what the impact could be. It could be quite severe. It could affect small businesses detrimentally, and it could affect charities which send out mailings, particularly at times of crisis, and receive responses from people who might otherwise not be reached.
	As the noble Lord said, it is right that increasingly there is a move towards opting in. One sees this increasingly when purchases are made on the internet: you have to say positively that you would like to be on the mailing list, as opposed to having to remember to tick a box not to be on the list. That certainly seems to be the direction of travel as I see this issue in the context of data protection.
	I shall consider this matter carefully with my colleagues from the Department of Trade and Industry and shall be carrying out some kind of consultation. At this stage, I am not sure whether it will be formal or informal, but I shall get some idea of the impact and implications. I shall keep the noble Lord fully informed about that because I know that it is an area of great interest to him. I hope to be able to come back to him shortly—perhaps formally in writing with a copy in the Library of the House so that other noble Lords can see where we have got to.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rix: moved Amendment No. 118:
	After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
	"Legal incapacity to vote
	ABOLITION OF COMMON LAW INCAPACITY: MENTAL STATE
	(1) Any rule of the common law which provides that a person is subject to a legal incapacity to vote by reason of his mental state is abolished.
	(2) Accordingly, in section 202(1) of the 1983 Act (general provisions as to interpretation), in the definition of "legal incapacity" after "addition" insert ", where applicable,".
	(3) And in section 10(1) of the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 (c. 3) (interpretation), in the definition of "legal incapacity" omit the words "or of any subsisting provision of the common law"."

Lord Rix: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 118, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 132, 139, 148, 151, 152, 154 and 156, which are consequent upon it. I am supported in these amendments by my colleague in the disability field, the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I am delighted to see him in his place this evening.
	The amendments all relate to what some might call an anomaly and others an outrage in electoral law, which I highlighted at Second Reading. The existing common law relating to elections denies the right to vote to those it refers to as "idiots" and "lunatics". I hope the whole House will agree that such language, when used to refer to people with a learning disability or mental illness, has no place in a modern democracy. I am delighted that the Minister agrees, and am grateful to her for indicating her support for these amendments and for the assistance that she and her department have given me in drafting them.
	The changes I propose are of great symbolic and practical importance to people with a learning disability and to other disabled people, who are still subjected to abuse and discrimination—which should be challenged by the law, not enshrined within it. I should declare an interest in this issue as the president of the Royal Mencap Society, an organisation which has campaigned for these changes and which will welcome them wholeheartedly.
	Amendment No. 188 would abolish any common law rule which links a person's incapacity to vote to his mental state. That is what currently ties the language of "idiots" and "lunatics" to electoral law, and has led to disabled people being denied the right to vote as the result of unjustified assumptions about their mental capacity being made by election officials and members of the public. Abolishing the common law rule would make disabled people subject to exactly the same eligibility criteria as everyone else.
	The other amendments clarify the language used about disabled people in election law by replacing "incapacity" with "disability". Incapacity is an important concept in the law around disabled people's decision making—as the Minister who last year so ably steered the Mental Capacity Act through the House well knows. Yet it has a different meaning in electoral law, for it means legal disqualification from voting, rather than a physical or mental condition which makes voting difficult. For the purposes of this Bill, it seems best to avoid suggestions that disabled people have any kind of incapacity.
	Disabled people have the right to vote and the right not to be insulted. By accepting these amendments, this House can show its commitment to upholding the equality of disabled people and protecting them from discrimination and abuse. I beg to move.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I am pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Rix, by adding my name to this group of amendments. With his speech at Second Reading, and in moving the lead Amendment No. 118, the noble Lord has, as always, clearly explained the meaning and the intention of these amendments. There is no need for me to go into any further detail.
	We can all agree that words such as "lunatic" and "idiot" have no place in legislation. Yet these amendments can deal only with the common law concept of incapacity, as it applies to electoral law. The Minister will remember the many debates we had involving capacity and incapacity on the Mental Capacity Act. As I said, these amendments deal with the common law concept of incapacity as it applies to electoral law.
	Unfortunately these amendments are not able to deal with offensive wording which appears in statute on the face of Acts of Parliament. For example, I am not sure whether noble Lords are aware but Section 118 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 under "Interpretation" has the following definition:
	"'incapacitated person' means any infant, person of unsound mind, lunatic, idiot or insane person".
	That might be called the casual offensiveness of the draftsman's lexicon of that time. I have not been able to find those words in other Acts of Parliament, but I have tried very hard to see if the scope of this Bill would enable an amendment to be tabled to amend the Taxes Management Act. So far I have not been successful, but I should warn my noble friend that there is still Third Reading—as I have raised the subject on Report, an amendment would be admissible at Third Reading.
	A final serious point—the amendment to this Bill and the offensiveness of the words in the 1970 Act, which I have just quoted, show just how far we have come since 1970. Those of us, and there are many outside this place and in the other place, who have campaigned for years for the rights of disabled people to be seen as a full part of civil rights and human rights can get some satisfaction that the words so casually used in common law and in statute are now inconceivable.
	I congratulate and thank the Government on helping to draft the amendments and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for moving them so ably. As I understand it, the Government intend to accept these amendments—they had better because they drafted them. This will be three successive amendments accepted by the Government, which shows that we are a listening Government.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, it is probably superfluous to say that we support these amendments. They make common sense in the way we now refer to and look at people with disability, and it is proper that legislation should reflect that. Therefore, I support them with pleasure.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I would just like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on once again achieving a step forward in the battles which he has so bravely fought for many years in your Lordships' House. We of course support the amendments.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, at the risk of the warm glow extending to the tax Bill or whatever it was that my noble friend referred to—good luck, if you can get it into this Bill—I am happy to make the changes. It is always a privilege to work with two of my great heroes in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and my noble friend Lord Carter. I know that all noble Lords will have willed them on to find a way in which we could do this. It was a privilege to help, and of course we accept the amendments.

Lord Rix: My Lords, all I can say is how grateful I am to you all. This is a historic moment for people with a learning disability and people with a mental illness. They will feel a lot better on reading tomorrow's Hansard. I thank you all very much.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 73 [Commencement]:
	[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 120:
	Page 90, line 11, leave out paragraph (h).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 123:
	Page 90, line 25, leave out subsection (5).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
	Clause 74 [Extent]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 125:
	Page 90, line 34, leave out paragraph (b).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 1 [Amendments]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 126:
	Page 95, line 19, leave out "not" and insert "also"

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the amendment makes a small change to the provisions relating to anonymously registered electors, which we discussed in Grand Committee and earlier this evening.
	Paragraph 15(7) of Schedule 1 allows the electoral number of an anonymous entry to be included in the edited version of the register, which is available for general sale.
	Although an anonymously registered person's name and address will not appear on the edited register, we think that the inclusion of even the elector's number creates a small potential risk, particularly if a person purchased the edited register covering a small area, as undue attention could be drawn to the anonymous entry.
	I appreciate that the risks are small but I would like to see them avoided altogether if the edited register did not include anonymous entries. Because we are talking about people who could be at substantial risk, I hope noble Lords will be prepared to accept this small amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 127:
	Page 104, line 4, leave out "has permission to attend granted under" and insert "is entitled to attend by virtue of"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 129:
	Page 104, line 21, leave out "have permission to attend granted under" and insert "are entitled to attend by virtue of"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 130 not moved.]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 131:
	Page 104, line 31, leave out "has permission to attend granted under" and insert "is entitled to attend by virtue of"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rix: moved Amendment No. 132:
	Page 106, line 38, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"Assistance for persons with disabilities
	64A In rule 35 of Schedule 5 (votes marked by presiding officer)—
	(a) in paragraph (1)(a) for "physical cause" substitute "disability";
	(b) after paragraph (5) insert—
	"(6) In this rule and in rule 36, reference to disability, in relation to voting, includes a short term inability to vote."
	64B In rule 36 of that Schedule (voting by persons with disabilities), in paragraph (1)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (a) for "physical incapacity" substitute "disability";
	(b) for "other incapacity" substitute "other disability".
	64C In rule 41 of that Schedule (procedure on close of poll), in paragraph (1)(f) for ""physical incapacity"" substitute ""disability"".
	64D In the Appendix of Forms in that Schedule, in Note number 2 to the Form of declaration to be made by the companion of a voter with disabilities for "incapacity" substitute "disability"."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 133 to 138:
	Page 107, line 17, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
	Page 107, line 23, leave out first "In"
	Page 107, line 23, after "elections)" insert "is amended as follows.
	(2) "
	Page 107, line 27, at end insert—
	"( ) In paragraph (1B)—
	(a) omit "and" after paragraph (a);
	(b) after sub-paragraph (b) insert—
	"(c) the postal voting statement also states the date of birth of the elector or proxy (as the case may be), and
	(d) in a case where steps for verifying the date of birth and signature of an elector or proxy have been prescribed, the returning officer (having taken such steps) verifies the date of birth and signature of the elector or proxy (as the case may be).""
	Page 108, leave out line 12.
	Page 110, line 22, at end insert—

"Tendered ballot papers

In rule 40 of that Schedule (tendered ballot papers), in paragraph (3) at the end insert "and the voter must sign the list opposite the entry relating to him"."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Rix: moved Amendment No. 139:
	Page 110, line 22, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"Assistance for persons with disabilities
	71A In section 202 (general provisions as to interpretation), in subsection (1) after the definition of "Common Council" insert—
	""disability", in relation to doing a thing, includes a short term inability to do it;".
	71B In rule 38 of Schedule 1 (votes marked by presiding officer), in paragraph (1)(a) for "physical cause" substitute "disability".
	71C In rule 39 of that Schedule (voting by persons with disabilities), in paragraph (1)—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (a) for "physical incapacity" substitute "disability";
	(b) for "other incapacity" substitute "other disability".
	71D In rule 43 of that Schedule (procedure on close of poll), in paragraph (1)(f) for ""physical incapacity"" substitute ""disability"".
	71E In the Appendix of Forms in that Schedule, in Note number 2 to the Form of declaration to be made by the companion of a voter with disabilities for "incapacity" substitute "disability"."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 140 and 141:
	Page 110, line 25, leave out "in pursuance of permission granted under" and insert "by virtue of"
	Page 110, line 30, leave out "has permission to attend granted under" and insert "is entitled to attend by virtue of"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 142:
	Page 110, line 35, at end insert—
	"(4) In paragraph (4) for "A candidate's spouse or civil partner" substitute "One other person chosen by the candidate"."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 144 and 145, 155 and 158. Those amendments change paragraphs 73 and 75 of Schedule 1, part 5.
	Amendments Nos. 142 and 144 change the rules specifying who a candidate can invite to the nomination proceedings and count proceedings, respectively. The amendments provide that a candidate can invite a person of their choosing. Previously, that was limited to a spouse or civil partner, but my noble friend Lady Gale, whom I am delighted to see in her place, argued at Second Reading that that was too restrictive and that a candidate should be able to invite a family member or common law partner, and so on, if they so wished. The Government have accepted that argument.
	My noble friend Lady Gale only mentioned attendance at the counting of votes, but when we took the matter to parliamentary counsel, they rightly pointed out that the candidate can also invite a spouse or civil partner to the nomination procedure and that that provision should also be amended for purposes of consistency.
	The second paragraph of Amendment No. 144 is a consequential amendment to the changes that the Government proposed to make to the observation of elections, as set out in Clause 33. It simply reflects the new language of Clause 33, which changes the observer regime from a permissive to a rights system where, as we have mentioned under earlier amendments to election proceedings, observers may turn up unannounced.
	Amendment No. 144 gives effect to a further change in policy relating to spouses or civil partners. It restores the discretion of returning officers to invite any person to the count who may not appear under the list of specified persons who automatically have a right to attend under electoral law. The Government originally intended to remove that discretion in the Bill, but feedback from electoral administrators suggests that that could cause problems, such as allowing for the attendance of a local mayor who is not the returning officer of a constituency in his area.
	Amendment No. 145 makes a further technical change necessary to restore returning officers' discretion. Amendments Nos. 155 and 158 are consequential amendments to Schedule 2. Amendment No. 155 simply reinstates rule 44(3) of Schedule 1 to the RPA 1983, which is a returning officer's discretion to invite people to the count. Amendment No. 158 changes the reference to the Civil Partnership Act, reflecting the fact that a candidate will now be able to be accompanied by any person of his or her choosing, rather than being restricted to a spouse or civil partner. I beg to move.

Baroness Gale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing these amendments forward. I raised the matter at Second Reading because I felt that it was unfair that single people were restricted and were not allowed to bring anybody in with them. This amendment puts that right and it means that a candidate, be they married or in a civil partnership, can bring whomever they choose. They may not wish to bring their spouse or their civil partner with them. The amendment creates a level playing field and ends discrimination against single people. I thank the Minister.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 143:
	Page 111, line 2, leave out "have permission to attend granted under" and insert "are entitled to attend by virtue of"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 144 and 145:
	Page 111, leave out lines 12 to 19 and insert—
	"(2) In paragraph (2)(b) for "their spouses or civil partners" substitute "one other person chosen by each of them".
	(3) After paragraph (2)(d) insert—
	"(e) persons who are entitled to attend by virtue of any"
	Page 111, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 146:
	Page 112, line 8, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 147:
	Page 113, line 32, leave out "114" and insert "114A"

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 149 and 160. These amendments are technical amendments which clarify that certain provisions in the schedules to the Bill do not affect local government elections in Scotland. The amendments add to other provisions already included in the Bill which ensure that current electoral legislation applying to devolved areas in Scotland is not affected by the provisions in the Bill. The amendments therefore ensure that the Bill does not create the possibility of legislation passed in Westminster impacting on devolved matters in Scotland without the proper use of a Sewel Motion.
	Amendments Nos. 147 and 149, which refer to paragraph 114A, act as a signpost to certain amendments contained in Schedule 1 of the Bill which are not to apply for the purposes of Scottish local government elections.
	Amendment No. 160 identifies that certain provisions of the 1983 Act are not to be regarded as having been repealed for the purposes of Scottish local government elections. For example, the reference to Section 75(1) reflects the fact that the Scottish Parliament has competence to legislate regarding the prohibition of third-party expenses incurred in connection with Scottish local council elections. The repeal of Section 75(1) contained in Schedule 2 to our Bill is qualified to that extent. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rix: moved Amendment No. 148:
	Page 113, line 32, at end insert—
	"88A In section 10 (maintenance of registers: annual canvass), in subsection (4B) for "any incapacity" substitute "blindness or any other disability".
	88B In section 10A (maintenance of registers: registration of electors), in subsection (1B) for "any incapacity" substitute "blindness or any other disability"."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 149:
	Page 117, line 30, at end insert—
	"114A The amendments made by paragraphs 93, 94, 96, 99 and 101 do not apply to a local government election in Scotland."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 150 not moved.]

Lord Rix: moved Amendments Nos. 151 and 152:
	Page 117, line 31, at end insert—
	"114A In section 6 of the Representation of the People Act 1985 (absent vote at parliamentary elections for an indefinite period), in subsection (2)(b) for "physical incapacity" substitute "disability"."
	Page 117, line 32, leave out "the Representation of the People Act 1985" and insert "that Act"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]

Lord Rix: moved Amendment No. 154:
	Page 118, line 15, at end insert—
	"( ) In paragraph 3(3)(b) after "by reason of" insert "blindness or other disability or, in the case of local government elections in Scotland, by reason of"."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Repeals]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendment No. 155:
	Page 120, leave out line 49.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rix: moved Amendment No. 156:
	Page 121, line 21, at end insert—
	"Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 (c. 3) In section 10(1), in the definition of "legal incapacity", the words "or of any subsisting provision of the common law"."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: moved Amendments Nos. 157 to 160:
	Page 121, line 23, column 2, at end insert—
	"In Schedule 4, paragraph 2(6)(a) and "or" following it."
	Page 121, line 48, leave out "85(5)" and insert "85(2) to (5)"
	Page 121, line 50, leave out "Sections 13 to 18"
	Page 121, line 51, at end insert—
	"Note: The repeals relating to sections 74A(2), 75(1), 81, 90A, 90B and 119(2) of the 1983 Act do not have effect in relation to those provisions as they apply to a local government election in Scotland."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before ten o'clock.

Monday, 15 May 2006.